Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

NEW WRIT

For Harwich, in the room of Sir Joseph Stanley Holmes, called up to the House of Peers.—[Mr. Buchan-Hepburn.]

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY

Shore-Based Personnel

Mr. Dugdale: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the percentage of men in the Royal Navy who are now shore-based.

The First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. J. P. L. Thomas): Some 30 per cent. of the officers and men in the Royal Navy are engaged on Fleet Air Arm duties ashore or are under training or employed in training establishments and consequently have, in the nature of their duties, to serve ashore. Of the remainder, almost two-thirds are at sea and just over one-third are shore-based.

Mr. Dugdale: I am afraid it is rather difficult to follow those figures straight away. Can we be told the total percentage on Vote A who are shore-based?

Mr. Thomas: I am afraid I have not the total figures on Vote A. All I can tell the right hon. Gentleman is that there has been some improvement and that I hope for greater improvement still. I hope for better things, for the position does not yet satisfy me. There has been an improvement over the past two years.

Official War History

Captain Ryder: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty when the first volume of the "Official History of the War at Sea" will be published.

Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: I understand that the first volume will be published in May this year.

Captain Ryder: Has there not been rather a long delay in its production? Could my right hon. Friend say when the manuscript was completed?

Mr. Thomas: The promise was that the first volume should appear during 1953. It is ready now and I think it is therefore only a few weeks later than originally intended. There were reasons of sickness to account for that delay.

H.M. Dockyards (Leave Closure Periods)

Brigadier Clarke: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty (1) what considerations guided him in deciding to close Her Majesty's dockyards for two weeks

(2) what consideration was given to the convenience of the dockyard workers or the local inhabitants before deciding to close the dockyard for two weeks' holiday;
(3) what consultations were held with the trade unions before it was decided to close Her Majesty's dockyards for an annual two weeks' holiday.

Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: I will, with permission, answer Questions Nos. 7, 8 and 9 together.

Brigadier Clarke: May I have separate answers to these three Questions as they are quite different?

Mr. Thomas: If my hon. and gallant Friend will listen to my reply, which I am afraid is rather long, I think he will find that it takes in all the points of the three Questions.

Mr. Dugdale: Was your permission, Mr. Speaker, given to the right hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Speaker: I rule that in this case the Questions ought to be answered together as the Minister proposes. Then we will consider whether the Questions have been properly answered.

Mr. Thomas: The most economical and efficient method of giving annual leave in Her Majesty's dockyards, and most other Admiralty industrial establishments, is to have a closed period. This was


done before the last war, and the granting of an additional week's leave to industrial workers generally in 1953 made it highly desirable to return to the pre-war system. The re-introduction of a closed period will enable large savings to be made in several ways, as experience with staggered holidays in 1953 has shown. For example, yard services can be dispensed with during the closed period, and a more balanced labour force can be maintained during the working weeks of the year. The closed period also provides a valuable opportunity for the maintenance and repair of machinery, plant, roads and buildings.
The date of the closed period will be decided locally for each establishment through Whitley channels; the wishes of the workpeople will be given the fullest consideration, and annual leave will generally be taken at the time of year most favoured by the majority in each establishment. The proposal to reinstitute the closed period was fully discussed by the Admiralty Industrial Council during 1953,and the reasons were fully explained to the trade union side before the decision was announced.
This step is an important contribution to economy and efficiency, and I am hopeful that in practice it will not cause disproportionate inconvenience to the workpeople concerned as a whole.

Brigadier Clarke: Was consideration given to the fact that the majority of the dockyard workers have wives and daughters working in industry—canteens, restaurants, laundries and similar places—who will all want to go on holiday at the height of the Portsmouth holiday season, which is most inconvenient to the city, and that it is extremely inconvenient for all dockyard workers to be forced to take their holiday at a time decided by the Minister? I understand that the Whitley Council have never been given an opportunity of saying what date they require except within a special period of one month. The dockyard workers prefer to take their holidays when they want them.

Mr. Thomas: As regards the last part of my hon. and gallant Friend's supplementary question, there was no limit put on dates so far as the trade union side was concerned. I fully realise that difficulties will arise, especially for workers whose wives are working in other indus-

tries, but we have all that under consideration and we have, in the interests of economy and efficiency, decided to re establish this closed holiday.

Mr. W. J. Edwards: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me whether this proposal was made with the concurrence of the trade union side of the Admiralty Industrial Council, or whether it was forced upon them? Will he also tell me how he is going to make an economy by having a closed shop—having the dockyards closed for two weeks in one year—when they have been having staggered holidays for the last 13 years, with much more efficiency than will be the case if the dockyards are closed down for two weeks? Will he also say if this decision to close the dockyards down was not at the request of the Naval staff of the Admiralty in order to have Naval weeks for Naval charities?

Mr. Thomas: The hon. Gentleman has asked me so many supplementary questions that I hope I can remember them all. So far as the trade union side of the Admiralty Industrial Council was concerned, the decision was noted under protest. There is to be a review in a year's time. Meanwhile, they have promised to carry out the decision of the Admiralty. The hon. Gentleman also asked me what we saved by this decision. Roughly we have saved an extra week's work. I cannot go into the figure in terms of money, but roughly it works out that we have saved a whole week's work. The hon. Gentleman said that staggered holidays had been in practice for a long time. That is true, but the extra week's holiday was introduced only last year. It is the extra week's holiday that has caused the lack of efficiency and lack of economy.

Mr. Foot: Will the right hon. Gentleman understand that there is very strong feeling against the Admiralty's decision in all dockyard towns, and will he give an undertaking that even if he will not change the decision for this year he will go into the whole matter in the fullest possible manner for next year to see if we can revert to the system which has prevailed for so many years?

Mr. Thomas: As I have said, this matter will be reviewed next year and, of course, representations from all dockyard towns and areas will be taken into consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHIPBUILDING

Construction

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware that there is danger of a fall in British ship construction in 1954, as compared with 1953, and as compared with foreign shipyard construction; and what steps he is taking to maintain and extend the British shipbuilding industry at and beyond its present standards

Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: It seems at present improbable that the output of merchant shipping from British shipyards in 1954 should fall below the 1953 level. All possible steps are being taken to increase the supply of steel plate to the shipyards, and the output in 1954 should therefore be greater than in 1953. It would be premature to attempt a comparison between British and foreign shipyard output in 1954.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that Lloyds, the Shipbuilding Conference and other great authorities are complaining eloquently about the dearth of forthcoming orders and expressing the fear that there may be great unemployment in the shipyards unless something is done? What are the Government doing to forestall that?

Mr. Thomas: I do not wish the hon. and learned Member to think for a moment that I or the Admiralty are complacent about the future of the shipbuilding industry, but I have told him that I hope for better results in 1954 than those of 1953. That was the Question which he asked. I trust that something near one-and-a-half million gross tons will be completed during 1954 if the steel plate supplies come along all right, and we are doing our very best to see that they do.

Sir L. Ropner: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that there will be better deliveries of steel plates during this year?

Mr. Thomas: That is not under my control. There is reason to believe that there will be.

Mr. Hobson: Has there been any evidence of cancellation of shipbuilding orders because of the shortage of steel plates and the delivery dates?

Mr. Thomas: Yes, there have been a few cancellations for that reason, but I very much hope that the position will improve.

Russian Orders

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is yet in a position to state when the contracts for 30 trawlers and fish factory ships, ordered by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics from British shipbuilders, will be signed; what is the extent of the orders in terms of money and kind; with which British shipyards they are being placed; and, in particular, how many contracts in money and in kind are being placed with Aberdeen shipyards

Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: No, Sir. I am informed that negotiations are still in progress in Moscow. The second and third parts of the Question do not, therefore, arise.

Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister remember my asking him a somewhat similar Question some months ago, when he gave a very hopeful answer? Has he abandoned that hope and is he not taking any steps to see that these orders can be accepted?

Mr. Thomas: I certainly have not abandoned that hope, but it is not in my hands. Negotiations are going on between these private firms and Soviet Russia in Moscow at the moment. I am afraid the matter is out of my control, but I hope it will not take much longer.

Dredgers (Licenses, Soviet Bloc)

Mr. Swingler: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will now grant licences for the building and export of dredgers to countries of the Soviet bloc

Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: Yes, Sir, so far as is consistent with security considerations. I have not yet received any applications for licences to construct dredgers for the Soviet bloc. Any such applications will have to be considered individually on their merits.

Mr. Swingler: Is not the Minister aware that his answer is most unsatisfactory? Is he not aware that three dredgers are now being built in Dutch shipyards for


the Soviet Union and Poland about which inquiries were made with dredger-building firms in this country, but that when the firms inquired from the Board of Trade they were told that they would not get licences and that there was no point in applying? Is he not aware that those orders were therefore diverted to Holland? Will he make it categorically clear to the dredger-building firms that they can get further orders?

Mr. Thomas: What the hon. Gentleman suggests is not the case about licences at present, within the security regulations, although I realise that these ships have been built in Holland. The fact remains that the Admiralty have no applications for permission to accept orders for dredgers for the Russian bloc.

North-East Shipyards (First Lord's Visit)

Mr. F. Willey: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will make a statement on his recent visit to North-East shipyards

Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: Yes, Sir. I was very glad to have this opportunity of visiting shipbuilding and ship repairing yards on the North-East Coast and of meeting representatives of both sides of the industry. I can assure hon. Members that I am well aware of the problems confronting the industry and that I am anxious that every shipbuilding area, including the North-East Coast, shall receive fair treatment.

Mr. Willey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his visit to the North-East shipyards was very much appreciated by the shipbuilding interests and we hope that it will be followed by serious consideration of very difficult problems facing the future of the industry? Is he further aware that in Sunderland, in particular, we regret that the Mayor of Sunderland was not given the opportunity of formally welcoming him to the town, and the trade union spokesmen in Sunderland regret that, although the right hon. Gentleman met the trade union leaders in Newcastle, he did not meet the trade union leaders in Sunderland?

Mr. Thomas: I did not want in the course of my very full tour to put the municipal leaders in the various towns and cities through which I passed

to the bother of actually coming out to welcome me. It is true that I called upon the Lord Mayor of Newcastle, but that was because I was staying in Newcastle for the night.

An Hon. Member: Because he was a Conservative.

Mr. Thomas: He was a Liberal Member of Parliament in this House in days gone by. So far as the trade union representatives are concerned, I extended through the Chairman of the Northern Regional Board of Industry, Sir Mark Hodgson, an invitation to representatives of the trade unionists of the North-East shipbuilding industry to meet me, and the choice was theirs. I was very glad indeed to meet their representatives who came to Newcastle to see me and to entertain them.

Mr. Blenkinsop: While the right hon. Gentleman was there, did he receive representations with regard particularly to the delivery of boiler plate for shipyards?

Mr. Thomas: I did receive them and I have taken note of them.

Oral Answers to Questions — WIRELESS AND TELEVISION

New Stations

Brigadier Medlicott: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General (1) if work has actually started on the construction and assembly of the equipment for the East Anglian television station

(2) if the site of the projected East Anglian television station has yet been decided on;and what is expected to be the area that it will effectively cover.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr.David Gammans): I am glad to inform my hon. and gallant Friend that authority has now been given to the B.B.C. to set up a station to serve East Anglia, and also five other stations not covered by the present programme, i.e., at Dover, Inverness, Londonderry, Towyn and Carlisle. The Corporation intends to acquire a site for the East Anglia station some 10 miles south-west of Norwich, and hopes to provide a temporary transmitter within 12 months to serve Norwich and its immediate surroundings. The permanent transmitter which will be set up later is expected to serve most of East Anglia not covered by the London station.

Brigadier Medlicott: While thanking my hon. Friend for this much better news than we have had for some time, may I ask him whether the B.B.C. will bear in mind the difficulties of sound reception in this area and whether this also can be improved by that time, if not sooner?

Mr. Gammans: Yes, Sir. The B.B.C. will certainly do that; but that aspect was not covered by the Question.

Commercial Broadcasting

Brigadier Medlicott: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General what safeguards are proposed to ensure that the proposed television corporation will be under an obligation to provide television coverage in rural areas, in view of the present situation whereby a large proportion of television facilities are concentrated in urban areas which already enjoy a disproportionate share of other amenities

Mr. Gammans: I would draw the attention of my hon. and gallant Friend to paragraphs 15 and 17 of the White Paper (Cmd. 9005) which refer to the Government's experimental approach to the question of competitive television. It is too early to talk about putting the corporation under obligation to provide national coverage.

Brigadier Medlicott: Is the Minister aware that owing to the almost entire absence of television reception in East Anglia, many people there do not even know what Mr. Gilbert Harding looks like? Is my hon. Friend aware of the great feeling of resentment which will arise in East Anglia if there is any suggestion that other parts of the country should be given alternative television programmes before East Anglia has even one programme?

Mr. Mayhew: Is it the position that whereas the B.B.C. is expected to give a national coverage, the commercial stations cover only what are from their point of view profitable areas? Is this what is known as free and fair competition?

Mr. Gammans: As I said in my original answer, the Government's White Paper merely envisaged an experimental approach towards this whole question.

Lady Tweedsmuir: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General the proposed strength and coverage of the new television stations in London, Birmingham and Manchester

Mr. J. Rodgers: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General (1) the frequencies, siting and power of the transmitters to serve the proposed competitive television stations

(2) if he will state not only the bands that are to be made available to competitive television, but also the exact frequencies to be employed for London, Birmingham and Manchester so that television set manufacturers can now start manufacture of dual tuned receivers at minimum cost to the public.

Captain Orr: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General whether, in view of the fact that in order that there shall be no delay in the introduction of competitive television the radio industry requires immediate technical informaton, he will now announce the frequencies to be used for this service

Mr. Gammans: 

Lady Tweedsmuir: Can my hon. Friend say definitely whether these stations will be of high or low power? It is important that there should be an early decision on this matter.

Mr. Gammans: This matter has to be discussed between my noble Friend and the corporation when the corporation is set up.

Mr. Rodgers: Can my hon. Friend say whether the second corporation, when set up, will have power to rent the masts of


the first corporation? Can he give any reason why the industry should have to wait nine months for this information?

Mr. Gammans: The first point which my hon. Friend raises is under consideration at this moment.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Is the Minister aware that it would be utterly inappropriate for the Post Office to answer Questions from questioners who have material interests in the matter?

Captain Orr: Is my hon. Friend aware that the latest and best technical information would show that television transmitters operating in Channel 8, and probably Channel 9 also, are likely to interfere immediately and seriously with other users in Band III? How does he reconcile this with his statement that it may take seven years to clear Band III? Does my hon. Friend anticipate that we may have to wait seven years before we get competitive television?

Mr. Gammans: If my hon. and gallant Friend reads my original answer to the Questions, he will see that that point is adequately covered.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: Would it not be helpful to the Minister if the vested interests concerned disguised their impatience and dissembled their greed rather more effectively?

Several Hon. Members: rose

Mr. Speaker: I have already ruled on this matter of questions by hon. Members. These criticisms are contrary to the spirit of my Ruling, and I deprecate them.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Is that to say that it is inappropriate for Members to make comments about certain persons putting questions, in the answers to which they have certain material interests? Do I understand that that is improper?

Mr. Speaker: I was asked some time ago to give a considered Ruling on this matter and I told the House, after consulting all the precedents, that there was nothing improper in an hon. Member putting down a Question for answer, even if he had a private interest in the matter. I gave that Ruling and that has been the Ruling of the House for a long time. Therefore, it seems to me undesirable for hon. Members to make comments challenging it. Either it is right

or it is wrong. I think it is right, and past Speakers have said so too. It does not conduce to friendly debate in the House that these accusations should be made.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Does that mean that under the rules of order it is improper for hon. Members of this House to make comments on Questions which they regard as improper, although you, Mr. Speaker, regard them as proper?

Mr. Speaker: It is not only I who regard these questions as proper, but all my predecessors, and I would deprecate unnecessary heat in these matters, which does not serve any useful purpose.

Mr. Jay: There may be no obligation on hon. Members to declare their interests, but is it not perfectly open to them voluntarily to do so?

Mr. Speaker: If on every separate Question an hon. Member declared his interest it would be very difficult to carry on.

Captain Orr: Is not this continual slur upon the honour of hon. Members really a device to cover up weakness in argument?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Hobson: With all due respect to your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, are not Questions in a different category where they seek to obtain from the Minister replying on behalf of Her Majesty's Government the exact wavelengths and frequencies of these stations which are calculated to make profit?

Mr. Speaker: It seems to me that the answers of the Minister are public property, and I cannot see anything wrong in that.

Sir H. Williams: Is it not most undesirable for Members of Parliament, whose election expenses are paid by coal miners, to ask Questions of self-interest about coalmining?

Mr. Speaker: I hope the House will bear with me. My sole desire is to prevent the introduction into our discussions of matters which are unnecessary and which may give rise to heat.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: I think it is only right to point out that I suggested


that hon. Members were not being helpful to the Government and not that they were guilty of any improper Parliamentary conduct. If any hon. Member is affronted by what I said and can give the House an assurance that he or she has no financial interest in this matter, I will, of course, gladly withdraw.

Mr. Speaker: I think we ought to pass from this topic.

Third Programme Reception, Cardiff

Mr. Gower: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General if he is aware that measures so far taken to restore the former quality and clarity of reception of the British Broadcasting Corporation's Third Programme in Cardiff and its environs have not yet proved effective; and whether he will now take further steps to deal with this problem

Mr. G. Thomas: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General whether he is now satisfied that the Third Programme of the British Broadcasting Corporation will be heard clearly in Cardiff

Mr. Gammans: Full power has now been restored to the Daventry transmitter and I understand that satisfactory reception of the Third Programme on 464 metres can again be obtained in Cardiff. The B.B.C. are, however, trying to make further improvements to the transmitter.

Mr. Gower: While thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask whether he is aware that while, apparently, the power has been largely restored, the tone is somewhat distorted and not of similar quality to what it was prior to the recent reduction in power?

Mr. Gammans: The power has only recently been restored. I do not know whether my hon. Friend made his remarks in the light of that knowledge.

Frequencies (Allocation)

Captain Orr: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General why frequencies for inland mobile radio are allocated by the Overseas Telecommunication Department of the Post Office

Mr. Gammans: Because that Department deals with the assignment of all individual frequencies. This is a specialised task which covers not only inland mobile radio services, but many other services,

both mobile and point to point, many of which affect overseas administrations.

Captain Orr: In view of the fact that it would seem that the Post Office regard the allocating of civil licences at home as a somewhat irksome appendage to their tasks, would it not be better to hand this over to the Ministry of Transport?

Mr. Gammans: I assure my hon. and gallant Friend that we do not in any way regard this as an irksome appendage.

Vehicle Wireless Licences

Mr. Erroll: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General whether, as local authorities are now required to find out if a motor vehicle containing a wireless set possesses a valid wireless licence, he will now authorise local authorities to issue vehicle wireless licences

Mr. Gammans: No, Sir. Wireless licences are already issued at about 20,000 post offices and I should not feel justified in asking local authorities to do the work as well.

Mr. Erroll: Is there any need, therefore, for local authorities to have to do the Postmaster-General's work for him by inquiring into the question of vehicle radio licences?

Mr. Gammans: That is an entirely different question.

Oral Answers to Questions — TELEPHONE SERVICE

Manual Exchanges, Glamorganshire (Replacement)

Mr. Gower: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General what manual telephone exchanges within the county of Glamorgan will be replaced by automatic exchanges in the next 12 months; in what areas such work will first be started;and if he will make a statement

Mr. Gammans: The manual exchanges at Crynant, Kenfig Hill, Llanishen, Gowerton and Glyn Neath are to be replaced by automatic exchanges in the next 12 months. Work on the first three has already started. In 1954 we hope to begin conversion to automatic working at Bargoed, Hengoed and Llandaff, and the new exchanges should be completed the following year.

Mr. Gower: May I thank the Minister for the interest he has taken in the most important part of the British Isles?

Mr. Callaghan: Will the Assistant Postmaster-General consider getting advice from his right hon. and learned Friend on the pronunciation of these names?

Cable Supplies

Mr. E. Johnson: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General how far the delay in the provision of telephones is due to difficulty in obtaining adequate supplies of telephone cables

Mr. Gammans: There is no difficulty in obtaining supplies of telephone cable from the manufacturers. Delay in expanding the local cable system arises from restrictions on capital investment; but as the position gets easier, we are gradually increasing the allotment for local cables.

Mr. Johnson: Is my hon. Friend aware that there has been a report in the technical Press which rather suggested that it was the fault of the manufacturers? Is my hon. Friend further aware there is no shortage whatsoever of cable and that the manufacturers of telephone cables are working much less than full capacity?

Mr. Gammans: I am aware of that, but the trouble now is shortage of capital investment. I must point out to the House, however, that in the past year we have reduced the waiting list for telephones by 65,000.

Oral Answers to Questions — SUB-POST OFFICE, BRIXTON

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General whether, in view of the inconvenience caused by closing the post office at Bon Marche, Brixton Road, S.W.9, he will provide equivalent facilities nearby

Mr. Gammans: Yes, if and when a suitable candidate offering suitable premises can be found.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Will the hon. Gentleman take steps to let it be known in the neighbourhood that applications are invited from suitable persons willing to set up a sub-post office?

Mr. Gammans: Yes, Sir. We have advertised once already, and we are advertising again this week.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE

Reserve Flying Schools

Sir W. Perkins: asked the Under-secretary of State for Air when he pro poses to close the remaining Reserve flying schools

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. George Ward): The Air Council have now completed their review of the policy for providing and training the aircrew Reserve which would be required to reinforce the Royal Air Force in war. We propose to concentrate on training a smaller number of aircrew reservists to a higher standard of efficiency on the types of aircraft which they would be required to fly in an emergency. This implies training at Service units, and as there will be no further requirement for civil schools, we shall be reluctantly compelled to close the remaining Reserve flying schools within the next five months. The detailed arrangements and dates are being discussed with the firms concerned.

Sir W. Perkins: Will my hon. Friend use all his influence with the Ministry of Labour to secure the reconstitution of the training scheme, which was so successful last time for these displaced pilots, so that they may qualify for airline work?

Mr. Ward: Yes, Sir, that has already been ensured.

Flying School, Tarrant Rushton

Mr. Crouch: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air how far the experimental work that is being carried out at Tarrant Rushton has proved satisfactory

Mr. Ward: No. 210 Advanced Flying School, Tarrant Rushton, is at present engaged on giving jet refresher and conversion courses to regular officers, a task which it is performing very efficiently.

Mr. Crouch: Is my hon. Friend aware-that his answer will be received with great satisfaction in the area in which this work is being carried out?

Mr. Erroll: Can the Minister say whether the altitude of this airfield has been successfully determined?

Mr. Ward: Yes, Sir, I understand that it is 300 and not 301 feet above sea level.

Oral Answers to Questions — CANALS (CLOSURES)

Mr. G. Longden: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation how many miles of canal have been, or are to be, closed by the British Transport Commission; and what steps he has taken to satisfy himself that such closure is in the national interest

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Hugh Molson): Authority has been given by Private Act or by Orders made by the Minister under the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888,for the closing to navigation or abandonment of some 48 miles of canal under the control of the British Transport Commission, and proposals are made, in a Bill recently deposited by the Commission, for the closure of a further 19 miles of canal.
Where authority to close a canal is sought by way of a Private Bill the question of the national interest is for Parliament to decide. Where an application is made to the Minister for an Order, he is required to be satisfied that the canal is unnecessary for the purposes of public navigation. Every application is advertised and interested parties have an opportunity of objecting. I can assure my hon. Friend that each objection is very carefully considered before any Order is made.

Mr. Longden: Would my hon. Friend not agree that these are national, capital assets of very great value other than mere financial value, and will he ensure that this House is informed as and when it is decided to write them off and be given the reasons?

Mr. Molson: That is quite true, and that consideration is always present in the mind of my right hon. Friend before he issues an order.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROADS

Queensferry Ferry Facilities

Major Anstruther-Gray: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (1) whether he will now grant his authority to improvements in the Queensferry passage ferry facilities, in order that these may come into operation in time for the summer traffic

(2) whether he has yet received a report from the Expert Committee examining Sir Bruce White's scheme for a road bridge over the Forth Railway Bridge; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): I regret that all three Members of the Panel have been ill and this has delayed their report. I will, however, ask the British Transport Commission to proceed forthwith with the preparatory work for the improvement of the ferry. It would in any case take at least 18 months to complete these improvements, after the plan has been approved.

Major Anstruther-Gray: May we not look forward to some improvement, at any rate this summer, in the ferry service, and, so far as the report of the Committee is concerned, would my right hon. Friend ask for an interim report as soon as these three gentlemen are restored to health so that we may know whether there is any possibility of any good coming out of it, or whether it is really prejudicing further action on the new Forth Road Bridge?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I hope to get an interim report very quickly. I am conscious that if the report is favourable to Sir Bruce White's proposals then the work on the ferry to that extent will be wasted. Anyhow, it will be a negligible expense in the preparatory stages. If the report is unfavourable, then this work will accelerate the completion of the task on the ferry, but I am afraid there can be no hope that the ferry work can improve the situation in the coming summer. I would make this plea, that the more there is talk about a Forth Bridge the less likelihood there is of getting on with something that is really possible within the next few years.

Mr. Woodburn: Is that last remark indicative of the fact that the Minister has now closed his mind to the possibility of a Forth Road Bridge and that we must concentrate on getting a ferry? Is he saying, in effect, that if we do not want the ferry we will not get the bridge, and if we agitate for the bridge there is not going to be any better ferry? Can he say what the answer to all this is?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It has been repeatedly pointed out in the House that the Commission cannot be asked to make


large expenditure on the ferry if a bridge is to be built very soon, and all I am concerned about is that there should be an improvement as soon as possible in the transport facilities. That is why my answer took the form it did.

Mr. Woodburn: Are we to understand that the Minister is now saying to people who are so perturbed about this, "You must stop talking about a Forth Road Bridge or you will not get a ferry"? Is that a threat?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Certainly not; I do not make threats. I am anxious that we should concentrate on immediate realities.

New Motorways

Mr. Janner: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what new roads to be included in the programme which he announced on 8th December will be scheduled as motorways; and what will be the approximate mileage of new roads so scheduled

Mr. Molson: The road programme which my right hon. Friend announced on 8th December includes, in its first few years, the following new roads which will be motorways:


Port Talbot By-Pass
4¼ miles


Preston By-Pass
9 miles


Ross Spur
23 miles


Lancaster By-Pass
12 miles

Mr. Janner: Is the Minister not aware that it is highly important to have as much mileage as possible over these motorways in consequence of the fact that they are of economic value as well as for the purposes of road safety? Does he think he can extend the mileage further than he has already decided to do?

Mr. Molson: No, Sir, not at the present time.

Severn Bridge Scheme

Mr. Janner: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation the present estimated cost of the Severn Bridge Scheme; to what extent the approach roads included in the £40 million scheme are regarded as indispensable; and what is the estimated period over which construction would be spread

Mr. Molson: As the answer is rather long, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:
The preliminary estimate of the cost of constructing the bridges over the Severn and the Wye is £10,600,000. The figure of £40 million as stated by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary in the debate on 8th December, represents the estimated cost of basing a programme of improved road communications with west South Wales on the Severn Bridge scheme and it includes the cost of the following roads which are regarded as indispensable: —
Western and eastern approach roads to the bridge from Crick on A.48 and from Almondsbury on A.38.
A new road from Almondsbury to link with A.4 at Chippenham.
A motor road from Newport to Crick and part of the proposed Bristol-Birmingham motor road (these roads being required to enable traffic between South Wales and the Midlands to make full use of the bridge).
The period over which construction would be spread would depend on the funds made available. The time to be allowed for completion of the Severn Bridge itself, including the prior removal of the Army Apprentices Camp at Beachley, would be eight or nine years.

Accidents

Mr. Erroll: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether a person sustaining injuries as a result of falling off a stationary bus is included in the total of road accident casualties

Mr. Molson: Yes, Sir, but the figures do not show whether the bus is moving or stationary.

Mr. Erroll: Is it fair to use figures of accidents when the bus is stationary to swell still further the figures of road casualties, and thus give an impression that road traffic is more dangerous than it really is?

Mr. Molson: I should like to assure my hon. Friend that the last thing in the world I want to do is to swell the unfortunately large figures of road accidents, but I do not think it would be reasonable to attempt to draw a distinction between accidents which happen when a bus is stationary and when it is moving.

Mr. Mellish: How can anyone fall off a bus that is not moving?

Weak Bridges

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what action he is proposing to take as a


result of the report of one of his inspectors about the danger of weak bridges over railways

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I propose to give effect as rapidly as possible to the recommendations made in this report. The particular bridges to which it refers will be reconstructed as soon as possible except one, which will be by-passed by an alternative route for heavy loads. In general, the reconstruction of weak bridges over railways will be given high priority in the road programme. My divisional road engineers have been asked to report cases where hauliers ignore official warnings of the weakness of bridges and I would appeal to all concerned to respect such warnings.

Mr. Greenwood: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many of these bridges are involved and how many years the work will take?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Gentleman's Question relates to the report of my inspector, which deals with five bridges. We propose to reconstruct four and to by-pass in the case of the other.

Pedestrian Crossings (Flashing Beacons)

Sir T. Moore: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he is now satisfied with the experimental use of the flashing traffic beacons; and whether he will consider altering their design and colour

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am satisfied that the flashing beacons are effective and I do not contemplate at present any alteration in their design or colour.

Sir T. Moore: Does my right hon. Friend not realise that both the colour and the action of these lights are confusing to the motorist, and tend to obscure the crossing rather than to define it?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Neither I nor my Department have received any hostile representations from responsible bodies—[HON MEMBERS: "Oh."] With all respect to my hon. Friend, he is a body, but not in that sense. I think that the recent foggy and dark weather in the day time has confirmed the view that they play a useful part, not least in the day time. In regard to the colour, as all

who follow this closely know, we were forced to avoid the red and blue ends of the spectrum and to choose the centre—yellow—in this case.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that with the aid of these flashing beacons the number of pedestrians who are knocked down on zebra crossings is going up steadily?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: That is a gross distortion of fact, and if the hon. and gallant Gentleman cares to pursue that with me afterwards, I will give him proof to the contrary.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Road Passenger Services (Licensing)

Mr. Ernest Davies: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will now make a statement on the Government's intentions in regard to the recommendations contained in the The siger Report

Mr. R. Robinson: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he is aware of the effect on Blackpool and other seaside resorts of the recent interpretation of what constitutes a special occasion for the purposes of Section 61 of the Road Traffic Act, 1933; when he anticipates that the Report of the Thesiger Committee on this and allied matters will be available; and whether he will consider the desirability of introducing some emergency legislation to deal with the position which will arise in connection with the hire of motor coaches to take parties from outlying rural districts into provincial centres for such special occasions

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am afraid the answer is rather long, and I will therefore, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Davies: Can the Minister at least tell the House whether he has accepted the implication in the Thesiger Report that there shall be no interference with the road passenger services of the British Transport Commission, as the right hon. Gentleman said he would await the Report before deciding whether he would denationalise the road passenger services of the British Transport Commission?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Gentleman will find a clue to my ideas if he waits for the answer.

Mr. Davies: Cannot he tell the House now?

Following is the answer:
I am indebted to the Thesiger Committee for their comprehensive and lucid report. I accept their view as to the value of the present licensing system and their statement that "what we consider should be left untouched is quite as important as are the comparatively few changes that we propose." I agree with the majority of their proposals for the detailed improvement of the licensing system and, subject to any further representations that I may receive, I propose to give effect to them as opportunity offers.
As regards the conveyance of private parties on special occasions the Committee have clearly shown the difficulties of the present position and recommend a new form of contract carriage licence. Without a good deal of further consideration, I would be reluctant to introduce a procedure which will impose a control on contract carriage work and will inevitably cause much extra work both for operators and for the licensing authorities. I propose, therefore, to examine further with the interests concerned whether a simpler and equally satisfactory solution could not be found by delimiting anew the occasions on which a private party can be carried at separate fares without the need for a road service licence.
Another important problem dealt with in the Report is the effect on the licensing system of the control by the British Transport Commission of undertakings providing road passenger services in the provinces. I do not dissent from the Committee's general conclusions on this question so far as they go; but, as the Committee recognise, there are other factors outside their purview to be taken into account and I am not yet prepared to make any further statement on the matter.

Heavy Loads

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will re-examine the whole question of the carrying of heavy loads by road with the abject of ensuring the maximum freedom of movement with the minimum risk to public safety

Mr. Molson: Yes, Sir. The subject is under review, but the Motor Vehicles (Authorisation of Special Types) General Order, 1952,already aims at precisely the objects to which the hon. Member refers.

Mr. Greenwood: Would not the Minister agree that this serious problem shows the need for fully integrating and co-ordinating the transport system?

Mr. Molson: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that this matter is under careful examination at the present time. We are hoping to take a further step in the direction which he desires.

Mr. Greenwood: Would the Parliamentary Secretary say whether he is trying to integrate and co-ordinate the transport system by breaking up British Road Services?

Freight Charges (Application)

Mr. Ernest Davies: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will make a statement on the application made by the British Transport Commission for a 10 per cent. increase in freight charges; and if the members of the Transport Tribunal acting as a consultative committee have yet made their recommendation to him

Lady Tweedsmuir: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what action he proposes to take regarding the British Transport Commission's request for a 10 per cent, increase in freight charges

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: On 31st December, as required by the Transport Act, 1947,I referred the application to the Permanent Members of the Transport Tribunal, acting as a Consultative Committee, and asked that their advice be tendered to me as soon as possible. I hope to receive their report by the end of this week or early next week. I will consider any representations made to me before I reach a decision.

Mr. Davies: While I am sure that everyone would accept the necessity to increase charges in order that fair wages shall be paid, is it not folly on the part of the Government to pursue their road transport policy and to deprive the Transport Commission of £8 million surplus at this time and, as a consequence, to drive up freight charges?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I could not accept that conclusion and all those considerations were argued in the last Session at great length.

Lady Tweedsmuir: Before my right hon. Friend makes a decision, would he bear in mind that a limit has really been reached for passing on rising costs to the


public and to industry, and will he consider what action can be taken to improve both efficiency and economy?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am deeply anxious about improved efficiency and I welcomed the assurances given by the union leaders in their talks with the Commission that they would also pursue the same end. In regard to the problem in Scotland, I understand that the associations in the constituency of the hon. Lady are in touch with British Railways in regard to particular local problems.

Mr. Davies: Will not the Minister admit that if road transport had not been denationalised the Commission would be better off to the extent of £8 million?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It is the view of Parliament, as expressed in the last Session—[HON MEMBERS: "Answer."]—that the efficiency of British transport as a whole, and therefore its net revenue, will gain by the action taken.

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. John MacLeod: Could the Minister say whether any action will be taken on the Cameron Report which dealt with this problem as far as the Highlands of Scotland are concerned because, if this increase comes, it will be an intolerable burden?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The representations in the Cameron Report are a proper subject for discussion between the Highland authorities and British Railways, who are the operators in this field.

Vehicle Licences (Car Radios)

Mr. Llewellyn: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation by what authority application forms for a road fund licence inquire whether a vehicle is fitted with a radio set

Mr. Molson: The authority for this is Section 9 (1) of the Vehicles (Excise) Act, 1949.

Mr. H. Hynd: Will the Minister carry this suggestion a little further, as has already been proposed to him, and embody in the road licence an indication whether the vehicle is fitted with a wireless set and that it has been licensed?

Mr. Molson: I will certainly consider that point.

Mr. Erroll: Could the Minister not arrange for a combined licence to be issued and so relieve the purchaser of additional trouble?

Licences, Newport (Overprinting)

Mr. Peter Freeman: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he is aware that many car licences for 1954 were recently issued for the year ended 31st December, 1953,by the Post Office in Newport; how many were so printed; and what steps are being taken to prevent a re-occurrence of such an incident

Mr. Molson: I presume the hon. Member refers to 850,000 licences which were originally printed with the date 1953 and were overprinted 1954 before issue. This was done to save wasting licences printed in 1952 to meet circumstances in connection with the Transport Levy which did not arise. By this expedient, a loss of £300 was avoided.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL AVIATION

Comet Airliner (Accident, South Elba)

Mr. F. Willey: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he will make a statement on the grounding of the Comets

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I would ask the hon. Member to await the statement I am to make shortly.

Heathfield Aerodrome

Sir T. Moore: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will give early instructions for the removal of the derelict huts on Heathfield airfield at Ayr

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: My Department is taking over responsibility for the area of the former Heathfield Aerodrome still held under requisition because part of it will be required for the new runway to be constructed at Prestwick Airport. The question of the disposal of the land and buildings at Heathfield is being examined, and I will communicate with my hon. Friend.

Sir T. Moore: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that these huts have


now lost all purpose, useful or otherwise, and are merely an eyesore on the countryside?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I will bear that in mind certainly, but I also hope that my hon. Friend will not regret any action which is necessary to increase the value of Prestwick.

Sir T. Moore: Hear, hear.

Oral Answers to Questions — KOREA PRISONERS OF WAR (RELEASE)

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a further statement on the Korean situation

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Anthony Eden): According to Press reports, in the early hours of this morning the Neutral Nations Repatriation Commission began to transfer to the custody of the United Nations Command the 14,300 Chinese and 7,700 North Korean prisoners of war who still refuse to be repatriated. We have not yet received official confirmation of this report, but I have no reason to doubt its truth. The United Nations Command have made arrangements to receive the prisoners and propose to treat them as fully entitled to release on 23rd January.
The negotiations to make arrangements for the Korean Political Conference are still adjourned. But efforts are being made to re-open these discussions and what are called "Liaison Secretaries" are, I am informed, meeting again today with this end in view. Her Majesty's Government earnestly hope that their meetings will be successful.

Mr. Henderson: While not necessarily dissenting from the views which the Foreign Secretary has just expressed, may I ask whether he would not agree that this will lead to a very serious position in Korea? In those circumstances will he not support the efforts of the Government of India to bring about as soon as possible a meeting of the General Assembly of the United Nations? Would he not also agree that nothing should be done meanwhile which in any way will have the effect of preventing the eventual holding of the proposed Political Conference?

Mr. Eden: We have always taken the view and have always expressed it, I think indeed with the full assent of this House, that these prisoners were entitled to their release on this day. I could not possibly say anything which would call in question the justice of that decision. The meeting of the Assembly is another issue on which we have to return a reply, I think, by the 29th of this month. We are considering the reply which we shall return. It will be influenced, of course, by the events of the next few days. I see no reason why, in view of the justice of our action, the disturbed events to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman refers should arise.

Mr. Chetwynd: Can the right hon. Gentleman say where it is proposed that the prisoners should be released? Are they to be sent to Formosa? Where are they to be sent?

Mr. Eden: Does the hon. Member mean to what place they are to be released? The Korean prisoners are to be released to their own country and the overwhelming majority of the Chinese to Formosa. Some have asked to go to a neutral country and we are trying to make arrangements of that kind, but they will not be easy.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Do we understand that the prisoners released will choose the destination to which they will go? Can the Foreign Secretary tell us whether the Government are willing to agree to the Assembly if the events of the next day or two show that to be desirable?

Mr. Eden: We certainly do not exclude from our minds a meeting of the Assembly, but, as I think the right hon. Gentleman will understand, we should like to see what happens in the next day or two before finally expressing a view as to the date on which that Assembly should meet. As regards the prisoners, all those who wanted to go back to their own country have had full opportunities to do so, as the House knows. I think that at the beginning of the last stage there were 135 Chinese who chose repatriation and went back to Communist China. The remainder have expressed a desire not to go to Communist China. As regards what other arrangements can be made for them, I think that my earlier answer has to cover that.

Mr. Henderson: May I express the hope that the Foreign Secretary will make it clear that no Chinese soldier will be compelled to go to Formosa against his will?

Mr. Eden: No, Sir, but some arrangements had to be made. So far, these Chinese have expressed their wishes when taken to the Repatriation Commission by shouting loudly "Formosa, Formosa." If, even at the next stage, they shout something different we shall try to accommodate their wishes, but it may not be an easy task.

Mr. Donnelly: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, provided the wishes of the prisoners for their release is carried out within reason, many people who have taken a so-called Left-Wing point of view on this matter entirely support the action of Her Majesty's Government?

Mr. Eden: I am much obliged to the hon. Member. I ought to say that the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition on this matter when it was last debated was very helpful in making it plain to other countries that there was a national view on it.

Oral Answers to Questions — SUEZ CANAL ZONE (NEGOTIATIONS)

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a further statement on the progress of the negotiations with the Egyptian Government on the future of the Canal Zone

Mr. Eden: Informal conversations have continued in Cairo since the return of Her Majesty's Ambassador on 17th December. I have, however, no substantial progress to report.

Oral Answers to Questions — ANGLO-BURMESE DEFENCE AGREEMENT

Mr. T. Reid: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement about Anglo-Burmese Treaty relations

Mr. Eden: In January last year the Burmese Government notified Her

Majesty's Government of the termination of the Anglo-Burmese Defence Agreement of 1948 and requested its replacement by a new agreement. Last week the Burmese Government communicated proposals for a revised agreement. These are now being studied by Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Reid: Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify this matter a little more? Is it not a fact that in practice the Burmese Government have adopted the Indian system of neutralism? It is not clear, therefore, for what purpose we are training their troops. Is it for the purpose of keeping down any sporadic revolution?

Mr. Eden: Last year the Burmese Government said that they wanted to revise the Agreement and under the terms of that Agreement a year had to elapse before revision. Now that year has elapsed and we are discussing with the Burmese what arrangement can be made between us. I would prefer not to say more about that until I know more about the result of those discussions.

Oral Answers to Questions — ADEN PROTECTORATE (YEMEN REPRESENTATIONS)

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what representations have been received from the Yemen about alleged acts of British armed aggression against unarmed villages

Mr. Eden: On 2nd December the Yemen Government protested about certain minor incidents in the Western Aden Protectorate; and the Yemen Chargé ďAffaires in London has since made oral representations on similar lines. The Yemen Note appeared to refer to the movement of a small force of Aden Protectorate Levies, sent in support of the authority of two Sultans who have been under British protection for many years. There was no bombing and there were no attacks upon defenceless villages, as the Yemen Government alleged. The incidents all took place inside the Aden Protectorate and outside Yemen territory. In their reply, Her Majesty's Government have therefore denied categorically that the Yemen Government have any standing in this matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — CO-ORDINATION OF INLAND TRANSPORT (PROTOCOL)

Mr. Ernest Davies: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs which countries have become contracting parties to the Protocol to co-ordinate and rationalise inland transport; and when the United Kingdom will do so

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Anthony Nutting): The following have become Contracting Parties to this Protocol: —
The Federal Republic of Germany, Belgium, Spain, France, Italy, Sweden, Switzerland, the British-United States Zone of the Free Territory of Trieste.
I hope that the United Kingdom will become a Contracting Party about the end of February.

Mr. Davies: Since the United Kingdom is becoming a Contracting Party to this Protocol for the co-ordination of inland transport, will the hon. Gentleman send a copy of it to the Ministry of Transport and suggest that he applies it in this country also?

Mr. Nutting: Our signature to this Protocol is in no way incompatible with our belief that the British transport industry will benefit from a greater measure of freedom. This particular Protocol, it may interest the hon. Member to know, has nothing whatsoever to do with the question of ownership.

COMET AIRLINER (ACCIDENT, SOUTH ELBA)

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: With your permission, Sir, and with that of the House, I will make a statement about the recent Comet accident.
As the House will know, a Comet airliner of B.O.A.C. on scheduled flight from Singapore to London, crashed into the sea to the South of Elba on 10th January. Of the 29 passengers and crew of six all lost their lives. The Italian authorities promptly organised search and rescue operations and 15 bodies have been recovered, together with small portions of wreckage.
On the following day the chairman of B.O.A.C. informed me that the Corporation had decided to suspend their normal Comet passenger services for the purpose

of carrying out a detailed examination of the aircraft of the Comet operational fleet, in collaboration with expert representatives of the Air Registration Board and the manufacturers. Subsequently, experts from the Royal Aircraft Establishment, Farnborough were also associated with the investigation. I fully concurred with these arrangements and arranged for the appropriate authorities in France and Canada to be informed. The French airlines, Air France and the Union Aero-maritime de Transport, which operate the Comet, likewise withdrew their aircraft from passenger services, but the Royal Canadian Air Force, not being engaged in public transport service, did not consider it necessary to do so. The detailed examination of four of the B.O.A.C. aircraft has already been completed but nothing has yet emerged from this examination to throw any light on the cause of the accident.
Immediately following the accident the Italian authorities appointed a Commission of Inquiry with which Mr. Nelson, the representative of my Chief Inspector of Accidents, was associated. The preliminary investigation established that the accident took place outside Italian territory. The Italian Government therefore handed over to Her Majesty's Government the subsequent conduct of the investigation and I have announced that there will be a public inquiry. The Italian Government have kindly consented to appoint two accredited representatives to assist with the investigation. My right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty has made available units of the Mediterranean Fleet for the search and, we hope, the salvage of the wreckage of the aircraft.
I myself attended the moving and dignified funeral and memorial services in Elba and thanked in person the Minister of Defence, the Italian Navy and all concerned for their invaluable assistance and co-operation. I saw at first hand the widespread sorrow of all Italians on the mainland and in Elba; and I am sure that this House will join with me in thanking them and in expressing our deepest sympathy with the relatives and friends of those who lost their lives.

Mr. Beswick: I am sure all my right hon. and hon. Friends would wish to associate themselves with the message of sympathy the Minister offered to the


bereaved in this tragedy. I think also they would wish to express their appreciation of the resolute way in which the Corporation, led by its Chairman, met this severe—although, we hope, temporary—setback. In particular, we appreciate the courage of the Corporation in deciding to ground these aircraft pending an examination, even though such a decision was liable to misinterpretation.
May I ask the Minister if he is aware that the accepted practice hitherto has been not to give any details of air accidents until such time as the proper inquiry has taken place? Will he agree that one statement of his, as reported in today's Press, that bits of metal recovered have been found to be coroded may lead to an entirely false impression and that it may even be assumed that the Corporation were permitting aircraft to go into operation although metal was coroded? Would he take the opportunity of correcting that impression and also similar speculation that the possibility of metal fatigue was a contributory cause of this accident?
Finally, may I ask the Minister if he will agree that the best service we could now all render in this matter is to allow the great concentration of brains and effort directed to the Inquiry to carry on with that Inquiry and do our best to damp down speculation until such time as the evidence has been properly sifted?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I thank the hon. Member for the various comments he has made. In particular, I agree that the Corporation behaved with promptitude and good sense in the difficult decision at which they arrived. As to anything I have said, I have been at pains to limit myself that I have seen reports of this and that, but I have drawn no conclusion from those reports, and from start to finish I have said that we ought to await the detailed and technical examinations, that we ought to attach as much importance to one possibility as to another and not rule out any particular conclusion. I agree with the hon. Member wholeheartedly that the best thing now is to await the detailed expert examination and to hope that out of this may emerge conclusions which will make flying safer than it is today.

Mr. Gough: May I ask my right hon. Friend a few questions? First, may I ask if a special message of sympathy could be sent to the Government of Bahrein, with which we are in treaty relations, and which suffered very grievously in this accident? Secondly, may I ask whether representations could be made to the B.B.C. that notification of such an accident should be withheld until the details are known as I understand that the first notification was just that a Comet had exploded in the sky and thereby a great deal of anxiety was caused to people whose relatives were in other Comets at the same time?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: In regard to the first suggestion, I know that the Government and people of Bahrein know of our sympathy and I will discuss the suggestion with the Foreign Secretary. There was a service according to their own religious rites at sea two days ago and I saw it. In regard to the second suggestion, it would of course be quite out of the question to withhold any announcement of a disaster of this kind. To the best of my recollection very quickly after statements were made, the exact identity of the aircraft was published as well.

Mr. Willey: Whilst fully supporting the Minister in all the steps he has taken, in view of the serious consequences of the grounding of the Comets, will he expedite all the inquiries so that this decision can be reviewed as soon as possible?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I must again make it plain that I have not grounded the Comets by Ministerial action, which involves the withdrawal of a certificate of airworthiness, but that the Corporation as a matter of prudence, has temporarily suspended them from service. After "a minute and unhurried examination"—to use the words of the Chairman—they will let me know what their conclusions are, based on the examination of the aircraft in their hands. It will then be for me to make up my mind what recommendation I shall make to the Corporation. Even though I did not ground them, most clearly the Minister must have considerable responsibility in the re-starting of the service. There can be no question of this matter not being faced long before the report of the tribunal has arrived and I am conscious of the need for as early action as is possible because I know of the value of this service.

Mr. Lewis: Has the attention of the Minister been drawn to the widely circulated Press reports in this country in which he is alleged to have made a statement whilst in Rome that sabotage cannot be ruled out? Can he confirm or deny that report? If, as I hope is the case, he can deny it, we shall be happy, but, if not, can he state whether or not he has any evidence to substantiate that sabotage was responsible?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The statement was first made by the Chairman of the Corporation and I think he was fully within his rights to say that sabotage could not be ruled out. I took the same view, it could not be ruled out. But he and I believe that no more importance should be attached to this particular aspect than to any other causes as important, but no more important. It would be a great tragedy if we allowed the feeling that perhaps something of this kind was responsible in any way to handicap the vigour with which we pursued other possible causes.

BILLS PRESENTED

Merchant Shipping Bill

"to amend the law with respect to the deductions to be made for the space occupied by the propelling power in measuring the tonnage of merchant ships in which the tonnage of the space solely occupied

by and necessary for the proper working of the boilers and machinery does not exceed thirteen, or in the case of ships propelled by paddle wheels twenty, per cent. of the gross tonnage"; presented by Mr. Lennox-Boyd; supported by Mr. Molson; read the First time; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 53.]

ELECTRICITY REORGANISATION (SCOTLAND) BILL

"to transfer the functions of the Minister of Fuel and Power in Scotland in relation to electricity to the Secretary of State; to establish the South of Scotland Electricity Board; to transfer the functions of the British Electricity Authority in the south of Scotland and of the Scottish Area Boards to that Board; to amend the Hydro-Electric Development (Scotland) Act,1943; and for purposes connected therewith"; presented by Mr. James Stuart; supported by Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd, the Lord Advocate, Mr. Boyd-Carpenter and Mr. Henderson Stewart; read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 54.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No.1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. Eden.]

HOUSING REPAIRS AND RENTS [MONEY]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).—[Queen's recommendation signified.]

[Sir CHARLES MAcANDREW in the Chair]

3.41 p.m.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Harold Macmillan): I beg to move,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make further provision for the clearance and redevelopment of areas of unfit housing accommodation, and for securing or promoting the reconditioning and maintenance of houses, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—
(a) contributions in respect of houses purchased or held by local authorities for demolition but retained for temporary use for housing purposes, consisting of—
(i) a contribution equal to one-half of the annual loan charges referable to the cost of purchase of each such house for each financial year in which any part of the house is used for housing purposes,
(ii) a contribution equal to three pounds, or such other sum as the Minister of Housing and Local Government may determine, for each such house (or, in the case of a house containing more than one separate dwelling, equal to the said sum for each such dwelling) payable annually for a period of fifteen years.
(b) any increase attributable to the said Act in the sums payable out of such moneys under section one hundred and seventy-three of the Housing Act, 1936, paragraph 5 of the Schedule to the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act, 1946, Part II of the Housing Act, 1949, or Part I of the Local Government Act, 1948.
The purpose of this Financial Resolution is a limited one. It is to authorise the payment of moneys in respect of one novel feature in the new attack now to be launched upon the problem of the slums. I wish to emphasise that point because there has been some misunderstanding on this necessarily rather complicated question. The cases in which what we have called "deferred demolition" or "patching" may be appropriate will be by no means universal; nor is this new provision intended in any way to delay the real work of slum clearance.
Before I come to the details of this Resolution, I ought to explain again the existing financial provisions applying to

slum clearance. There is no ground at all for saying that the present provisions for slum clearance are less generous than before the war. On the contrary, they are more generous to the local authorities than at any time in our history.
Under the pre-war Acts of 1930 and 1938, there was no grant towards the clearance of the slums as such. There was a grant for new houses provided in replacement of slum houses. This grant under the Act of 1930 was, as hon. Members may recollect, calculated on the basis of the persons displaced. Broadly speaking, the balance of responsibility between the central Government and local government worked out at a ratio of three to one.
In 1938, this grant was replaced by another system of grants in respect of the house, not of the person. That resulted in a ratio of two to one. The present financial arrangement is on the basis of three to one and is calculated on the house, whatever its type, and not on the number of persons dealt with. But it is, in reality, more favourable to the local authorities than the mere ratio of three to one would suggest.
There are two reasons for this. In the first place, it is to be paid over a period of 60 years instead of a period of 40 years. That makes a considerable difference. Secondly, there have been very important and valuable provisions developed since the war which make available special payments in respect of expensive sites both for houses and flats. Perhaps I might add that since the present rate of subsidy was fixed, not quite 18 months ago, the cost of borrowing has fallen. Therefore, on a strictly actuarial basis, the subsidy of £26 14s. is really worth £2 more than when Parliament fixed it.
I have gone into a little detail about the financial arrangements for slum clearance proper in order to remove any misunderstanding. What we now hope to do, assisted by the provisions of Part I of the new Bill, is to start again with a new effort and a new enthusiasm the drive to demolish the slums. For that main purpose the present generous and really quite exceptional subsidy provisions remain as the chief financial instrument.
We have, however, and this was explained on Second Reading, been forced


to recognise the fact that, with the best will in the world, some of our great cities will not be able to clear all their slums in five, 10 or even 15 years. What we are, therefore, suggesting as an experiment—it is an experiment—is to see whether some degree of "patching," as we have called it, should be undertaken to try to make life a little more tolerable for those who will have to wait in the queue for 10 or perhaps 15 years before there is any chance of their turn coming.
This is, no doubt—I say this frankly—uneconomic expenditure in the narrow sense of that word. I fully admit that, but I think it can be defended, and it is certainly put forward as an act of decency and Christian charity. On the other hand, if we are to do this it is very important—I am certain the local authorities will agree—that this expenditure should be of a modest kind and that local authorities should not be tempted to regard patching as a substitute for clearance.
It is for that reason that I do not think that in their interests or in the national interest the financial provisions should be made dangerously attractive. In saying that, I think I have the support of the best social reformers and the most progressive authorities. Nevertheless, we believe that in the special areas where the problem is a long-term one there is a place for this work in the setting of the larger plan for slum clearance.
To this end, we are asking the Committee, in this Resolution, to make a dual contribution. We are going to alter the law in the Bill itself and allow authorities to buy sites, including the houses, and to keep the houses for some time where they cannot clear them immediately. This is, as Members know, contrary to the present slum practice, for under the present law condemned houses must be pulled down at once.
We are going to give the local authorities a certain discretion in this matter, and we are therefore asking the Committee to provide to the local authorities, as part of the extra financial provision, half the annual loan charges on this novel and in a sense premature expenditure. I repeat—I propose to give them half of the loan charges during the period that the houses are, for one reason or another, left standing and not demolished. When the time comes when

they are demolished and new houses are built on that or another site, the three-to-one subsidy—the main financial provision—comes into play and the cost of the site is taken into account in the calculation of the subsidy to be paid. That is the first contribution—half of the loan charges upon this buying ahead, as it were.
Secondly, we are asking Parliament to provide a further contribution in order to assist local authorities who, instead of pulling down houses in a clearance area immediately, decide, after consideration and putting forward their plan to us and talking it over, that it is necessary to retain some of them for temporary accommodation. This sum is payable in respect of every house so retained. I wish to emphasise this point. The method of calculation I will explain in a moment. The sum, as stated in the Resolution, is an annual payment of £3 for every house retained. It will be paid for 15 years. It is based upon the average calculation, and it will be paid whether the amount of work done is substantial or small, or even if no work is necessary at all. It will be paid on each house in the area.

Mr. Aneurin Bevan: We on this side of the Committee would like some illumination about the words, "or such other sum." The local authorities may feel that, after having entered into the obligation, the sum can be reduced. Is it intended to reduce or to raise it? The language is rather ambiguous in that respect.

Mr. Macmillan: I shall come to that matter where it fits into the rather flexible character of the Resolution, to which I am glad the right hon. Gentleman has called attention. In that form it is rather unusual.
Broadly speaking, this contribution for the second half, for the patching of houses, is also calculated on a fifty-fifty basis. That is the reason the Bill provides for the payment by the local authority of an equal sum of £3 into their housing account. But there is this difference. What in reality happens is that the Government will pay £3 per unit, whatever the cost may actually prove to be, and the local authority will make what is really a bookkeeping transaction and credit its housing account with the sum of £3 whether it is actually needed


or not. If the work can be done at a lower price, the Government subsidy will not be reduced, but there will be a balance to the benefit of the local authority upon its housing account.

Mr. Bevan: It does not say so. It says here:
or such other sum as the Minister…may determine.

Mr. Macmillan: I shall come to that. On the £3 system, so long as it goes on the Government pay £3 per house and the local authority credits £3 to its housing account. I was only saying that there is a difference in the two transactions. The local authority gets £3 cash and the other is credited. If the work can be done for £2 on average, it has a credit on its own housing revenue account. That is the difference between the character of the two transactions.
We have consulted the local authorities by the ordinary machinery which all Ministers have used, but of course I must take the full responsibility for the final decision. I first saw the local authorities and discussed this whole problem in general terms at a confidential meeting before the publication of the White Paper. I need not apologies for so doing, because by long tradition it is right that there should be confidential and friendly discussions between the representatives of the local authorities and the Minister of the day. But in addition, my officials on several occasions discussed with the officials of the local government associations all the details of the scheme, and I held another meeting on 10th December, when I informed them of the final proposals of the Government. Now, at the request of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen, which I was glad we were able to meet, we have given certain further time, so there is no question of any rushing of the matter.
I take the opportunity to express my gratitude for the courtesy and understanding which representatives of local authority associations have always shown to me. I do not pretend that everyone is completely satisfied. I do not suppose everyone is ever completely satisfied as the result of any financial negotiation. Nevertheless, I think the scope and character of this rather special part of

the wide problem is now understood and appreciated by all the authorities concerned.
Objection has been taken on two counts. First, that the basis of the calculation is a fifty-fifty grant and not a three-to-one grant, which of course applies over the wider field of house building. Secondly, that the figures on which the unit grants were based were unduly low. On the first I thought it right to stand firm for this reason. It is not because the sums at stake are very substantial. They are, indeed, negligible in the vast totals of annual expenditure upon house building over the whole field, and the very large subsidies involved, and the great contributions which will have to be made on the three-to-one basis which we are maintaining in the broad work of slum clearance. It is not purely for that reason. Compared with all that expenditure the loan charges on these demolition sites and even the cost of patching are of a minor order. But I think it is widely felt in local authority circles that, wherever it is possible without too heavy obligations, it would be wise from the local authority's point of view to welcome something like equal partnership with the central Government.
In recent years we have seen a steady whittling away of local authority functions and responsibilities, and I am alarmed that this process may go on. I believe that local government has a great deal to gain by accepting equal partnership, especially in a case like this where it does not cost them very much. Moreover, in this case, in my view, it is important to see that this expenditure is kept to the minimum. If too much is spent on patching up these houses as a temporary measure, local authorities may be tempted to keep them up too long. I think, therefore, that too high a ratio of Government grant would be a mistake.
However, with the sympathy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer I have been ready to take a somewhat fluid view of the calculations as to the possible cost of patching. Therefore, to that extent there has been some whittling away of the fifty-fifty principle as it will apply. The idea is to pay a sum which will meet half the cost of writing off the capital used in bringing the house to a condition "adequate for the time being." Naturally, it is difficult to make a calculation


of a precise kind. The contribution first mentioned to the local authority based on what seemed to us sound calculations from as much evidence as we could get—particularly from the Birmingham experiment—was 33s. After further discussion, I was led by argument to think that it should be 45s., and so it appeared when the Resolution was first put on paper. But after further discussion and listening to representations, the figure which I am now asking the Committee to agree to is £3. Although, as I have said, the principle of a fifty-fifty basis remains, in practice it may have been found to be somewhat diluted.
Nor should it be forgotten that the unit grant is payable on any house within the clearance area which, under Clause 2, is approved for deferred demolition. That will be paid whether any work needs to be done or not, and therefore houses already in a state "adequate for the time being" will certainly help to average out the others where a greater degree of work is necessary in order that they may meet the requirements. This is an experimental—

Mr. Bevan: I am sorry to interrupt again, but the right hon. Gentleman has not addressed himself to the question which I put.

Mr. Macmillan: I am just coming to it.

Mr. Bevan: I am sorry.

Mr. Macmillan: I was going to say that this is an experimental system and therefore I or my successor will review it and its working as soon as there is enough experience to make such a review worth while. We have not inserted any term of years in the Resolution. It may be two or three years. I doubt whether there would be sufficient work done before three years, or sufficient experience gained, to make such a review of much value. It is well understood between the Ministry and the local authorities that the review will take place just as soon as there is enough evidence of what has been happening to make such a review valuable. That will be the time, if amendment is necessary, to come again to Parliament. But I would add that the system is made even more flexible because the Resolution itself and the Bill

give the Minister rather unusual powers. The Resolution authorises him to alter the rate of contribution without legislation, subject only to an affirmative Resolution of the Commons House of Parliament.

Mr. Hugh Dalton: An Order.

Mr. Macmillan: An Order. If the figure is found by agreement to require to go up or down, it is not necessary to go through the whole machinery of a Bill with all its complications; but the Minister can come to Parliament with an affirmative Resolution and say that it is felt that the sum ought to be £5 or £2 10s., or whatever it may be. It does not take away any powers from Parliament, but I think that it will be valuable to the local authorities and to us all, because to go through the whole machinery of a Bill in order to make an adjustment of this kind would take time. It does not take away and it does not add to the power of Parliament. To have a Bill would be a waste of Parliament's time. It is far more flexible and better that we should operate in this way.
Of course, the power of Parliament over the money must be kept, and it is kept by the affirmative Resolution. This procedure is not novel. It is followed in some of the other social services. In the case of the Assistance Board, variations can be made by affirmative Resolution. not by Bill.

Mr. Dalton: We are anxious to understand, because it is rather unusual, as the Minister says, in a Money Resolution to take power to increase later on, without a Bill but merely by the Minister's decision, subject to affirmative Resolution, the total amount to be spent. It is unusual, whether right or wrong. Can the Minister tell us where it is laid down that an affirmative Resolution is required, because that is not generally part of the machinery of a Money Resolution?

Mr. Macmillan: It will be so. It will be in the Bill. The Minister cannot vote more money—

Mr. Dalton: Exactly.

Mr. Macmillan: —without Parliamentary approval. I think that it will copy exactly what is done in the Assistance Board.

Mr. Bevan: It is subsection (4) of Clause 5.

Mr. Macmillan: I thank the right hon. Gentleman. If we think that the payments ought to be larger, we shall not have to go through the whole machinery of a Bill. A Resolution is put down and if the House agree then, for instance, the old age pension is raised by Resolution rather than by Bill. That is the purpose—to get a degree of flexibility in order to Implement the promise given that as soon as there is enough evidence there will be a review and whatever can be done will be done. That has the advantage that it gives far greater confidence to the local authorities.
One can often say, "We will do this." I am sure that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have found in the past that they would like to have a Bill but that there is no time or that the whole of the Parliamentary time-table has got very crowded and it is most difficult to have the Bill. This procedure gives much more confidence to local authorities because they know that, when the review is taken, it is a simple procedure for a change to be made by affirmative Resolution.

Mr. Bevan: This is so unusual a provision that I am sure the Committee will forgive me if before we have the general debate we try to get one or two points clear. Is it a fact that, after the local authority has incurred expenditure on houses, the Minister can, by Order, secure from the House of Commons a reduction in the annual rate of expenditure, because that is provided for in the Financial Resolution?

Mr. Macmillan: The Resolution says that, if it is decided after review that the rate should not be £3 but should be either less or more, it will not be necessary to have the procedure of a Bill because the change can be carried out by affirmative Resolution. I know that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale hates any revolutionary experiment. He takes an orthodox and somewhat pedantic view of our procedure, but I must try, in spite of all temptation, to think that precedents can be made as well as followed.
I should like to emphasise that the scheme of patching cannot make bad houses into good houses, and it cannot even make bad houses into fair

or moderate houses. It can never be tolerated, and ought not to be, where it is possible to destroy all the slums in a reasonable period of years. Therefore, the test is not the state of the houses but the condition of the city or area. There might be houses which it is proper to keep in a place where there is no hope of getting rid of all the slums for 50 years, which it would be absolutely wrong to patch and to keep in a city where the job can be done in four or five years.
The test is not the houses but the condition of the locality with which we have to deal. I emphasise that because I hope that, wherever they can, the authorities will do without the patching and will concentrate upon slum clearance and the other parts of the general scheme, which we are to discuss in the Bill, by which houses can be modernised or improved. I do not want local authorities to become slum landlords. I certainly do not want them to be happy about being slum landlords. It is only where there is nothing else to be done that I want them, with our assistance, to do something, however small, to improve the conditions and to bring some comfort to the people who have to live there for many years to come.
Apart from whether it is economic or whether there is a physical advantage—and it is a physical advantage if houses are made watertight, the roofs mended and something done—there is, and this has been proved by the Birmingham experiment, the imponderable but great moral advantage of making the people feel that somebody cares about them and that they are not altogether forgotten. If we were to make the grants too high, it would be really dangerous. The authorities might be tempted to regard this as a substitute for slum clearance. Secondly, even if they did not, the expenditure might reach a point which was not justifiable.
There is a further point, raised on Second Reading of the Bill, with which I should like to deal. I think that it was raised by the deputy Leader of the Opposition. What is to happen where the local authorities take over an area with a good deal of mixed property in it? The greater part may be slum houses bought at slum value, but there may be good houses, shops and factories. On the one


hand, it is argued that if they are not allowed to take over the whole together with the slum houses they are deprived of the opportunity of making a profit; on the other hand, it is said that in purchasing them there is an extra burden for which the grant makes no sufficient provision.
I think that the real answer is that there is no cause for complaint on either ground. Sometimes additional property must ultimately be bought in order that the appropriate boundaries can be got for the redevelopment area. Yet it would be burdensome to hold that property too far in advance of redevelopment. In that case, there is no purpose in buying shops, factories or even sound houses until the time comes when the authority is ready to proceed with the whole scheme. When that happens, the cost of the acquisition of the sound houses, the shops or whatever it may be, will be taken into account in the additional subsidy above the normal housing subsidy for expensive sites. That will be the time when it will attract that subsidy; that is, if the local authority chooses to do that, but, after all. it may do the opposite.
If the local authority would like to acquire these individual properties—shops and factories inside the area—because they are profitable and it hopes out of the revenue to balance some of its expenditure, then its application will certainly be favourably entertained. It is true that these profit-making properties cannot be acquired under the same legislative procedure as that for slum houses. But authorities can act either under their local Act powers or under those of the Local Government Act, 1933, or under the planning powers. I shall certainly be prepared to assist them in cases of that kind.
There is only one further point that I want to make about the method that we have adopted. I have been asked why we take a fixed unit sum in the case of the houses as the basis of calculation and have not offered to pay a percentage of the actual loss or cost in the case of each house. It must be clear to hon. Members that if we tried to calculate exactly what was the cost of the individual houses we should run into an amount of accounting and correspondence between Whitehall and the local authorities which would make it quite intolerable. For the large number of small transactions some system of averaging is absolutely neces-

sary.It is quite different in the case of the site itself. There we can make calculations on a single transaction and pay a 50 per cent. grant in respect of the loan charges.
I must add an apology to the Committee which I hope will be accepted. It was necessary to put the Resolution down again in slightly different terms because I was anxious that we should not get into the paradoxical situation of not making the grants in respect of the cities or boroughs which were pioneers in the undertaking before it was brought to the attention of the Government to be used as a model. By means of the slightly amended Resolution it is possible to include not only houses to be purchased but also houses already held, and that covers the Birmingham and other experiments.

Mr. Frederick Elwyn Jones: Will the right hon. Gentleman say more about the basis upon which he has arrived at the figure of £3? What are the assumptions on which his calculation has been based? The information which I have received from the borough treasurer of West Ham is that it is a grossly inadequate figure. It may be that the assumptions are wholly irrelevant to the problems of my constituency.

Mr. Macmillan: The calculation was made on the basis of what we thought was the likely average cost per house with a 15-year period for amortisation, taking the average rent likely to be paid for the houses and making allowance for maintenance. This works out at 33s. However, the result on the same fifty-fifty basis taking a somewhat more favourable view of the transaction worked out at 60s.,which seems to me not to be a bad result. It results in our giving a larger amount in the experimental period than that indicated as necessary by the strict mathematical calculations on the assumptions which we adopted, but, knowing the uncertainties which there must be, I thought it wiser to give the somewhat larger amount and not worry too much if it proved to be a little more favourable to local authorities than it ought strictly to be on the fifty-fifty basis.
I hope that, in view of these explanations, the Committee will be prepared to grant the financial aid asked for in the Resolution. Its form is novel. It is


flexible. The contribution is intended to assist the patching scheme which we hope will be useful in some cases but by no means universal. I believe that it provides assistance where it will be necessary in certain localities. It leaves unaltered the subsidy for slum clearance in general; there is still the three-to-one payment, for 60 years, with special regard to expensive sites. I hope the Committee will agree to the Resolution and will make this contribution as a modest but valuable addition to our general administrative machinery and armoury in the battle for social progress.

4.14 p.m.

Mr. Aneurin Bevan: I intended to wait and speak a little later in the debate, but I am so astonished by the speech that we have just had from the Minister that I feel we ought to try to get some further enlightenment immediately.
The right hon. Gentleman has talked all the time in grandiloquent terms about the Government's attack on the slum problem. He must realise that there is nothing at all in the Bill about slums. We are not discussing slums. All that has happened is that the right hon. Gentleman hopes that the slum clearance which started some little time ago will be accelerated. We all hope that. There has been some slight slum clearance for the last three or four years, and as the new house building of the local authorities is run down by the Government, it is hoped that they will be able to take up more slum clearance. Although the right hon. Gentleman talks about a plan for the onslaught on slums, there is nothing about it in the Bill; it is just a piece of rhetoric.
What is new in the Bill, apart from the rents, is the proposal to salvage for a short period of years houses which might otherwise be demolished. I never saw a father look with more suspicion on his own child than the right hon. Gentleman showed to this proposal. He said that we must not make it dangerously attractive—I am sure local authorities will have a quiet smile to themselves when they read that—for local authorities to hold the houses and not demolish them. I have seen no enthusiasm among local authorities for the proposal, so it is not a question of its being dangerously attractive.

What local authorities have been wondering is whether they ought to become slum holders at all and whether, if they are to become slum holders for a period of years, these financial proposals will not ruin them.
When the right hon. Gentleman regards himself as a revolutionary in Parliamentary procedure, I also allow myself a gentle smile. He is really one of the most disorderly Ministers I have ever encountered. Only a short time ago he stole a large sum of money without the consent of Parliament to carry out investigations into valuations, without telling anybody about it, and afterwards he said what a good thing it would be if that could always be done before a Bill was introduced. It would be an excellent thing for a financial dictator, without telling the House of Commons about it, to spend large sums of public money to find out whether his legislation would work or not before he introduced it.
That is what the right hon. Gentleman said the other day. What is the right hon. Gentleman saying now? In Clause 5 (3) of the amended Bill, the Minister has provided:
If it appears to the Minister that the expenditure incurred as a whole by a local authority in the repair, improvement and maintenance of houses approved by the Minister for the purposes of this section is unduly low having regard to the amount of the contributions for the time being payable in respect of those houses under paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of this section, he may withhold the whole or any part of the contribution payable under that paragraph to that authority.
The Minister called that flexible. I call it petty larceny. What happens, apparently, is that the local authority is tempted and exhorted by the Minister to acquire properties of this sort, and if the Minister thinks that it is not spending as much money on them as he thought it would, he can withhold the grant. He is not only frowning upon his child but also beginning to strangle it almost before it is born.
What local authority will incur expenditure with an unknown liability of that sort hanging over its head? As far as I understand it, the Minister may not only vary by Order subsequent payments but also reduce the contribution in respect of houses already acquired. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with that interpretation? We are dealing with the Money Resolution, and once we have passed it


we shall find ourselves handicapped in Committee. Does he agree with the interpretation that he can by Order—it is a most exceptional provision—vary Treasury payments to local authorities in respect of schemes on which they will already have incurred expenditure? I should like to know the answer.

Mr. Macmillan: I did not want to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but perhaps it might be more convenient if I were to answer these two points now. If, under the Resolution system as a whole, the Minister, after the experimental period, were to decide that the sum was too high or too low—that the £3 ought to be £4 or that it ought to be £2, over the whole period generally—he would come to Parliament with an affirmative Resolution, and Parliament would either approve of a reduction as a whole or an increase as a whole; but, of course, any increase or reduction would apply only to houses approved for grant after the affirmative Resolution had been approved, and not to houses approved for grant during the period before the review was made. That is the first point.
The other point raised by the right hon. Gentleman refers to Clause 5 (3). Subsection (3) is merely a proviso which it is necessary to put in to prevent abuse. As this calculation is made on the houses of the whole area—and it is more convenient to do it like that—it is possible, of course, that a local authority will do nothing and will spend nothing over the whole number of, say, 500 houses. In that case, where no expenditure at all has been involved, we would say to the local authority "We are not going to give you a grant, because you had a scheme but you did not carry it out, and therefore we must have the reserve power to refuse."

Mr. Ellis Smith: On a point of order. I want to ask you, Sir Charles, whether the answer just given to the question put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) is in accordance with the Standing Orders and the procedure laid down?

The Chairman: I think it is rather doubtful, and I thank the hon. Gentleman. In Committee the debate is confined to the terms of the Resolution itself, and must not be extended to the related Bill.

Mr. Bevan: I am bound to point out that, in point of fact, in dealing with the Financial Resolution we are trying to find out what it is that the local authorities are entitled to expect. As the right hon. Gentleman has already said, his proposals are highly flexible. If under the Bill the Minister can steal back from the local authorities what this Financial Resolution intends to give them, obviously the Bill is strictly related in the money sense to the Financial Resolution, because I can find nothing at all in subsection (3) of Clause 5 which bears the interpretation which the Minister has put upon it. I think that hon. Members in all parts of the Committee will be interested in this. I am perfectly ready to support the Minister when he is flexible, but when flexibility is earned to the point of deception it becomes rather serious.
The right hon. Gentleman has now contradicted himself. At the beginning the right hon. Gentleman said that he could not reduce the amounts paid except for those houses acquired after the Order was made; but the language of the subsection indicates that he may withhold—
the whole or any part of the contributions"—
and that is not the same thing at all. The Minister may withhold the whole or any part of the contribution in respect of local authorities which, having prepared schemes, have not gone on with them and have not incurred any expenditure at all. Superficially that would appear to be a perfectly reasonable proposition, but when the right hon. Gentleman goes on to say that any part of the contributions may be withheld, then that language can only have sense if the local authorities had indeed spent money and the right hon. Gentleman thought that their expenditure was not high enough to entitle them to the payment of £3.
If that interpretation is correct—and I submit that it is a reasonable interpretation—then the local authorities are encouraged under the Financial Resolution to believe that they would have £3 per year per house for 15 years, although the right hon. Gentleman or his successor may by Order reduce the £3 to some other figure. If that be correct—and I admit at once that this is such an original proposal that I may quite easily misinterpret it, and I hope that if I have the right hon. Gentleman will correct me immediately, because we ought not to have


our debate conducted on a false premise—I ask the Committee to consider what local authority is going to incur expenditure when its commitments would be unknown. These proposals are doubtful, but they are now made dubious by these additional financial proposals, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to make the position much clearer before we go on.
The second point I should like to make is this. I admit that the words "dubious" and "doubtful" may be regarded as synonymous, but there is always a certain odium of disreputability attaching to the former which I am not anxious to hand over to the right hon. Gentleman. It is, of course, common form, and we have had it on more than one occasion, that the local authorities ought not to have such large grants from central funds as to render them financially irresponsible in respect of particular schemes. That has always been regarded as a proper financial relationship between the central Government and the local authorities, and I do not dissent from it; but all the evidence that we have goes to show that the local authorities will not start carrying out this piece of Christian charity, as the right hon. Gentleman has now taken credit for it in three different speeches, unless they are satisfied that it will not ruin them.
Here they are being invited to acquire property and suspend its demolition. I myself must accept some measure of responsibility, because it was I who authorised the Birmingham scheme. I made the statute sufficiently flexible for that to be done at that time, although some people thought it had doubtful legality. At any rate, it was carried out, and with some measure of success; but I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he ought to make the position of the local authority much clearer.
I think that what the Minister should say is that, in order to be flexible, he will take power by Order to pay any larger amount that may be necessary, having regard to the expenditure of the local authority. In that case, local authorities would know where they are up to £3, because they would know that they would not get less than that. Administratively the Minister could always safeguard himself against having to pay too large sums of money from the Exchequer where the

expenditure which had been incurred did not justify it, because the right hon. Gentleman has the power to refuse schemes. He can administratively control the extent of the scheme, and there is no need for him to imagine that the local authorities would get away with large sums of money, because as the schemes were sent in to him he could see how they progressed and could arrest them until he had obtained from Parliament reconsideration of the financial proposals.
It is not as if the Minister will be caught in the tight clamp of a statute, because he has power to do that. What I am urging upon the Committee and the Minister is that the local authorities themselves cannot be expected to increase their expenditure if their budgets are to be retrospectively upset by a Money Resolution of the House of Commons.
My next point is one of considerable substance. While it is perfectly correct that the local authorities should always have a financial interest in the efficiency and economy of their own enterprises, it is nevertheless a fact that special grant schemes of this sort will have to be considered in relation to the general burden of rate expenditure. In other words, if we have a particular scheme such as one for schools, slums or one like this proposal before us, where it is not wise to give a local authority 75 per cent. or 100 per cent. of the cost because the authority would have no interest in its efficiency, nevertheless the local authorities find themselves unable to continue with the special grant schemes because generally the expenditure is too high.
Therefore, it seems to me that if the local authorities are going to carry out these duties, they can do so only if the right hon. Gentleman contemplates a larger distribution of Government grant under the Equalization Fund. My hon. Friends would argue that even here the contribution is inadequate, and the right hon. Gentleman has confessed that he made two revisions in his original proposals, so that he cannot regard us as hypercritical if we think that his final solution is still on the frugal side. We think that he should give more. But if he is adamant in his decision that the grants are not to be higher than the present proposals, then I think he should carefully consider with the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether many local


authorities will be in a position to start these schemes on any substantial scale.
In my part of the world, in Glamorganshire, Monmouth shire and Martyr Tidily, the rates in the £ are already mounting up to the level at which they were before the Equalisation Fund was formed. We are having resolutions from local authorities all over the country complaining about the increased rates. The main reason for the increase, of course, is expenditure on education. That is the heaviest single item that local authorities have to carry. It is sending rates in the £ up to as much as 27s. 6d. and 30s., and although it can be argued that in some of those cases rateable values are lower than the average in the country, nevertheless many of the properties are very old, in sanitary and unfit for human habitation, and to ask the occupants to pay higher rates is unreasonable.
If, therefore, local authorities are to incur additional expenditure under schemes of this sort, while I repeat that the schemes should retain the financial interest of the local authorities concerned, the Government should consider whether the assistance to the general rate ought not to be given earlier if local authorities are to do any of this work at all.
This is not strictly related to the proposals under the Measure, but what I am suggesting is that if the right hon. Gentleman hopes for any of these schemes to be carried out, he must put local authorities in a position to be able to undertake them. Otherwise his proposals will be abortive; they will never start. Particularly will they not start if the local authorities themselves are dubious, or doubtful, about their financial commitments under the proposals.
I know that many of my hon. Friends will be anxious to put before the Committee cases of particular local authorities. I beg the Committee not to permit the Minister to obtain this sort of Financial Resolution without asking from him much more candour than we had in his original statement. The Minister, I know, had difficulties with the Exchequer. Every spending Department has. I have had some myself. The Minister also is in a field where he has nothing at all to guide him, in estimating his expenditure, except the Birmingham

scheme. Therefore, I admit that it is hard for him to go to the Exchequer with hard-and-fast estimates as to what may be conceded by them.
The right hon. Gentleman is perhaps entitled to congratulate himself on having managed to win from the Exchequer agreement to a proposal by which he can move the grant upwards by Order. That is the original nature of the concession which the right hon. Gentleman has won from the Treasury. I am not sure whether it is one that the House of Commons ought to be pleased about. It comes very near to taxation by Order. Hon. Members should realise that once the Order is placed on the Order Paper of the House of Commons, it cannot be varied. It is not embodied in a Bill, and it cannot be amended. All we can do is reject it or accept it, and I think the Chair will advise us that we would not be able to discuss the general provisions of the statute of which it would be the monetary expression. We would be confined to the Order itself. We would not even be able to discuss the administration of the right hon. Gentleman under this Bill when it becomes a statute. All we would be able to do is to say "yes" or "no" to the provisions of the Order, whether they move £3 upwards or downwards.
I do not know whether hon. Members on the opposite side of the House want to have the finances of the nation conducted in such a manner. Perhaps they do. The right hon. Gentleman regards himself as a financial revolutionary. I am beginning to be grateful to him for the precedents that he is setting. They will be extremely convenient. This is the third that he has given. I hope that hon. Members opposite will not complain in the future if a Labour Government extracts money from their pockets by a straightforward simple Order.
The right hon. Gentleman has some justification for his departure from convention because, as I say, he is here in an entirely strange field and he has got this concession from the Treasury. But he has paid too high a price for it. It is quite true that he can by Order make the £3 more, and that is where his victory lies; but his defeat lies in the confusion of mind which he creates as to whether the £3 will be less. I am wondering


whether the unconventional victory that he has won with the Treasury will not completely destroy his Measure.

Mr. H. Macmillan: I do not see that there is any danger of that, because if the Order should be made in a downward way—which seems to me to be unlikely—it would not affect anything except schemes which have not yet been begun. It would not affect the Birmingham scheme. That would go on.

Mr. Bevan: I have pointed to the language whereby the Minister can withhold payment. Withholding payment is not the same thing as varying the payments under the Measure. Withholding payments is holding back payments which might otherwise be made.

Mr. Macmillan: That is quite a separate provision for a special case. What I am dealing with is the general Order making the sum £3, £4 or £5 over the whole country. That is distinct from a special provision for some particular individual case. All I am saying is that if the Order were approved by the House for the amount to go down, it would not reduce the £3 in respect of schemes running for the past three years. It would not affect the past. It would affect the next set of schemes. Therefore, I do not see why it is such a great disadvantage to local authorities.

Mr. Bevan: I hope that we shall be able to deal with this point in Committee on the Bill. I hope that we shall not be constrained by anything that is in the Financial Resolution.

Mr. Macmillan: It has not been put yet.

Mr. Bevan: I know it has not been put, but I have seen some funny things happen in Committee and I am putting in a claim that we might want to raise this point subsequently in Committee.
We have had from the right hon. Gentleman a very considerable amount of praise, which he has accorded to himself to the universal cheers of his hon. Friends behind him, about the nature of his original proposals. No doubt hon. Gentlemen will have noticed that he is in a much different mood tonight. He does not expect very much from these Orders. As

a matter of fact, he thinks that the expenditure on them may be negligible. If the expenditure is negligible the amount of Christian charity will be very thin. The right hon. Gentleman is probably quite right. The good sense of the local authorities will rescue him from a very bad piece of legislation.

4.42 p.m.

Mr. Henry Brooke: The right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) was very closely concerned with all these housing matters during the six years that he held office, and it must be a matter of intense satisfaction to him that now, in the year 1954, we really seem to be on the threshold of a renewal of the pre-war slum clearance drive.
There was one point in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman with which I felt myself in full accord. That was where he said that we must look at these matters against the general background of local government finance, and that we could not divorce them from other claims on the rate fund. There, surely, we are all in agreement. I sincerely trust that my right hon. Friend will, in due course, bring forward fresh proposals which will help local authorities to stop the annual rise in rates which is such a serious feature of the present situation.
The right hon. Gentleman says that local authorities are left in confusion by the present proposals. The confusion is in his own mind and not in theirs. I am a member of two local authorities and I have not been unfamiliar with the negotiations that have been going on. The point which has been worrying local authorities most is not by any means the one out of which the right hon. Gentleman fabricated the major portion of his speech this afternoon. Local authorities have read the Bill, and done so. I think, more carefully than he has. They are perfectly well aware that if any downward change in this figure of 60s.were made subsequently by Order it would not apply to property which they had purchased before the date of the Order, and. therefore, it would have no effect whatever on their existing commitments.
They are also fully aware that the only provision in the Bill by which the Minister can reduce the contribution he pays in respect of houses is related to cases where the actual expenditure of a


local authority on repairs has appeared to be so unduly low as not to justify the payment of the full amount of the annual Exchequer grant. Everybody recognises that there may be disputes about what is "unduly low," but if there is any question of a local authority's expenditure being low in a particular case it cannot be argued that the reduction of the Government grant will cause it unexpected hardship. Whatever happens, that local authority is likely to be paying out less than in the normal case. My own expectation is that this is an exceptional instance, and I doubt whether that particular subsection will be greatly used.
The right hon. Gentleman said that any suggestion of the Bill to which this Money Resolution refers being a plan for a fresh onslaught on the slums was pure rhetoric. Today, we are discussing the financial arrangements which local authorities must have in mind when they are drawing up a clearance programme for the years ahead, a programme which they are to be instructed to complete and submit within 12 months.
It will be within the memory of most of us that it was precisely that procedure in the year 1933—not a legislative but an administrative procedure—which led to a greater clearance of slums in the six following years than ever before, so great that in those six years six times as many slum houses were demolished as had been pulled down in the previous 75 years. We all want to see what is going to happen. On this side of the House we shall give our fullest and most vigorous support to local authorities who use their powers and who seek to emulate in the coming years the rate of slum clearance which was in progress when it was so tragically interrupted by the war.
The issue that we are discussing today, the kernel of this Money Resolution, is a comparatively minor one. The big slum clearance effort will be with houses which can be purchased for clearance. The Money Resolution provides for cases in. I should have thought, a comparatively limited number of the larger cities and towns, where it will not be possible or thinkable that all the slums can be cleared quickly but where the slum clearance programme must include property which, in the nature of things, could not all be demolished within a short period of years. We all want that period to be

shortened as much as possible and not drawn out.
This Money Resolution is drafted to implement the clear understanding which the Minister has conveyed to the Committee that the figures are experimental. None of us can tell exactly how this interesting new scheme will work out; we shall all want to look at it again in the light of experience. I am well aware that when the first figures were presented by the Minister the local authorities were very dissatisfied. Frankly, I am not surprised. Various things have occurred since then, all of which help me to give this Money Resolution in its present form my support.
One of them is that the amount of the annual grant has been raised from the initial much too low figure of 33s. a year, which was put forward in the first discussion with local authorities on 23rd October, to the present figure of 60s. which is in the Resolution? The second thing that helps me and gives me confidence is that, as my right hon. Friend has explained, the House of Commons will have power to review these figures and to make a fresh Order if the experience of the coming months and years proves that the present figure of 60s. is wrong, either too low or too high.

Mr. R. T. Puget: This is where the position seems a little difficult. If work is done on the basis of 60s. and if this figure turns out to be wholly inadequate, there is no power that I can see to recompense local authorities for the very bad bargain they have made. Therefore, will not every local authority wait for some other local authority to be the mug and try it?

Mr. Brooke: The hon. and learned Gentleman is raising an interesting point, but he must beware of destroying the argument which his right hon. Friend has presented to the Committee. He is putting forward the case of the local authority which may get caught, but his right hon. Friend was indicating that no local authorities will proceed.

Mr. Bevan: That is the point.

Mr. Brooke: That is certainly not the case. There are plenty of local authorities which know full well that these figures will be sufficiently suitable to enable them to go ahead.

Mr. Bevan: In that case, it will obviously be on the houses which are most habitable, and people will still continue to live in the very bad houses because this will not enable local authorities to improve them.

Mr. Brooke: I take a very different view from that of the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman, who, I think, did serve on a local authority many years ago, evidently holds the view that a local authority will not carry out its bounden and humanitarian duty unless it can make a profit. That is completely untrue. There are men and women, at any rate of my political outlook, on housing committees of local authorities who will go ahead with slum clearance because they know it is essential, even if they find that the figures are not so advantageous.

Mr. James McCall: It was the hon. Member's right hon. Friend who said that housing authorities would not carry out their slum clearance unless they were getting a large central grant. That, surely, is precisely the same as saying that they will be influenced by profit.

Mr. Brooke: I quite agree that every local authority should and will have a report from its treasurer on the financial implications of what it is doing, but local authorities on which my political friends are in the majority will not refuse to carry out what I say is a direct humanitarian duty because they feel that they ought to be getting 63s. instead of 60s.
The third development which I think should strengthen the decision of the Committee to support this Money Resolution is the Minister's declared intention of widening the definition of houses to which these grants are to apply. If, as some people have argued, these grants will only be payable in the case of very bad houses on which the maximum amount of money would have to be spent, then, clearly, that would support the argument of the Opposition that the figure was inadequate. But if I understand my right hon. Friend aright, he intends to include under Clause 1 of the Bill other houses which are not in a state of being unfit for human habitation. This £3 annual grant will, in fact, be averaged over the whole, and that is another reason why it now seems to me that we have arrived at a reasonable figure.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: Would the hon. Member be good enough to indicate any provision in the Bill which applies this temporary occupation to anything but an unfit house?

Mr. Brooke: I am in some difficulty in answering a question which refers directly to the Bill when your predecessor, Sir Rhys, has ruled that such references would be out of order.

Mr. Mitchison: On a point of order. Surely, if the hon. Member is saying what is in the Bill, he should either say it correctly or not at all.

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): I think that at this stage he would not be in order in discussing the Bill at all.

Mr. Bevan: The hon. Gentleman accused me just now of not understanding the Bill, but he is giving us some part of the Bill which is not there. Surely, if the hon. Member is entitled to argue that the £3 is adequate because there will be houses that local authorities will take over which will not require to have money spent on them, then that is strictly relevant to the question whether the £3 which is in the Money Resolution is adequate.

The Deputy-Chairman: As long as it is in the Money Resolution it is in order, but if the matter were extended to a debate on the Bill then that would be out of order.

Mr. Bevan: Further to that point of order. If it is argued that the £3 is adequate because there will be houses on which local authorities will not have to spend as much as £3, then, obviously, that should influence the Committee in deciding whether £3 is enough, in which case we ought to be told in what part of the Bill that argument is valid.

The Deputy-Chairman: That does not seem to me to be a point of order at all. That refers to the Bill, and we can argue later on about that.

Mr. Brooke: Perhaps I shall not be cutting across your Ruling, Sir Rhys, if I recommend the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) to refer not to the Bill, but to the Standing Committee Amendment Paper.

The Deputy-Chairman: That would certainly be going much too far.

Mr. Brooke: I certainly will not wish to do that. What we have to do today is to try to fix on a figure which will give local authorities the right sort of encouragement to operate this new legislation, designed to enable them to purchase houses for temporary maintenance pending subsequent demolition, without fixing it so high that they might be tempted not to patch, but wholly to recondition.
None of us can really say what the average cost will be. What we want to do is to put into the Bill a figure that, while capable of subsequent alteration in the light of experience, will meanwhile enable local authorities to go ahead.
I shall turn for a moment to the 50 per cent. grant in respect of site acquisition. I confess that I do not yet understand why it is 50 per cent., and I am certain that local authorities will note with interest my right hon. Friend's defence of 50 per cent. on the ground that it is a good thing that there should be an equal partnership. Some of his right hon. Friend's will hear that argument used against them in respect to some grants on other services which are at present less than 50 per cent.
I have been into this fairly closely, and it appears, on examination, that the cost of purchase will be small in relation to the other financial aspects of the matter with which this Money Resolution is concerned. Financially speaking, the big issue is not whether there is to be a 50 per cent. grant or a 75 per cent. grant in respect of site acquisition, but whether the 60s. annual grant for each house is right. I think that my right hon. Friend invited trouble for himself by originally putting forward a figure as low as 33s. He seems to have thought he was playing auction, and not contract.
The local authorities have successfully proved that 33s. was not going to be enough, and at their conferences and elsewhere proceeded to put up a dual argument. On the one hand, they argued that the average expense of patching a house would not be £140—which was the figure originally mentioned—but something more like £200. At the same time, they argued that this cost should be amortised, not over a period of 15 years as has been suggested by the Minister, but over a period of 10 years.
Those two arguments to some extent cut across one another, because if one is to assume that these houses are to have a shorter average life than 15 years that, clearly, will diminish the average amount of money which should be spent on them. I therefore think that the local authorities were at fault in that part of the presentation of their case, just as I say, frankly, that I consider the Government were at fault in their original figure.
Having weighed up the matter—and I hope that I have convinced the Committee that I have tried to form an independent view on it, and have studied it as well as I can—Icome to the conclusion that it is right to go ahead with some such figure as 60s.,provided it is subject to review and alteration by Order if it is proved to be too high or too low. But I do beg the Committee to bear in mind that this is a minor part of the undertaking. The major part is clearance. What is really important with slum houses is not to patch them up, but to knock them down.

5.2 p.m.

Mr. Ralph Morley: I hope that the Committee will bear with me if I devote myself almost entirely to the impact of this Money Resolution on the Southampton local authority.
I am instructed that there will be 2,000 houses in Southampton to be acquired and renovated within the terms of the Bill. On the basis of previous experience it is estimated that the average cost of the acquisition of the site value will be £75 per house, and, on the experience of the Birmingham experiment, it is estimated that the average cost of renovation per house will be £180. Having acquired and renovated the houses, the local council will be entitled to draw rents from them, and I imagine that 8s. a week would be a reasonable average rent.
If those estimates are correct we then get the following yearly figures in relation to each of the 2,000 houses. Estimated cost per house, loan charges on cost of acquisition,60 years annuity at 4 per cent.—£3 6s. 4d. Loan charges on cost of renovation,15 years annuity at 3½ per cent.—£15 12s. 7d. Normal repairs, management, etc., estimated by my borough treasurer at £12, making a total


cost on each house of £30 18s. 11d. per year. Against that, receipts will be: average net rent at 8s. per week—£20 16s. per annum. Exchequer subsidy as proposed in the Money Resolution, 50 per cent. of loan charges on cost of acquisition for the period of temporary use—£1 13s. 2d., and the proposed unit grant of £3 a year for 15 years, making a total of £25 9s. 2d.
The annual deficit to the local council on each house will thus be approximately £5 10s. per house. With 2,000 houses the annual deficit to the borough council will be approximately £11,000 which, on the present rateable value of Southampton, amounts to nearly a 2d. rate. Even so, Southampton is rather fortunate as compared with many towns in the North Midlands, the North of England and in Lancashire. We only have 2,000 of such houses whereas in those other localities many thousands of houses are involved and the cost to the local authorities there will be proportionately greater.
In his opening speech the Minister said he thought that if he made too generous a grant for this work it might discourage the local authority from performing its proper function. I imagine that what is discouraging the local authorities from performing their proper functions at the present time is the fear of too highly rising rates. The rates in most county boroughs are bound to be increased this May because of increased interest charges and because sections of their employees have received wage and salary awards in respect of the increased cost of living. Only very few local authorities will not have to put up their rates from 6d. to 1s. in the £, and now this further charge is likely to fall upon them. I believe that it is the fear of increased rates rather than an undue generosity on the part of the Exchequer which is preventing local authorities from doing work which ought to be done.
The terms of the Money Resolution undoubtedly mean that when this work is carried out there will be an increase in the rates. I therefore hope that, in the very near future, the right hon. Gentleman will propose to modify the financial assistance he is at present suggesting, and to give the local authorities something a little more generous than the Resolution sets out.

5.9 p.m.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: In the course of my remarks I shall deal with some of the calculations put before the Committee by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Morley) but I want to take a somewhat wider ambit.
It has already been repeatedly emphasised that this Financial Resolution is concerned only indirectly with slum clearance and directly with its reverse, namely, with the deferment or suspension of slum clearance. When my right hon. Friend said that in this matter we had to keep a balance and be careful that we did not so weight the scales that the inducement to defer slum clearance might be excessive, it seemed to meet with some scepticism—perhaps I should say dubiety—on the benches opposite.
But, after all, we are here embodying into general legislation the results of a striking and successful experiment made by the City of Birmingham without these grants at all. It is by no means absurd, therefore, to say that in legislating for a system of grants we have to consider very seriously the danger of over-weighting equally with the danger of under-weighting the inducement to perform this sort of work.
Incidentally, as the Bill is drawn, hon. Members will have noticed that every increase which might be made in the unit grants provided in the Resolution would bring with it a corresponding increase in the payments to be made by the local authorities out of the rate fund.
Now let us consider these grants under the two distinct headings into which they fall; for I think that some confusion has arisen from attempting to combine the two types of grant. Let us consider, first, the grant in respect of the purchase price. That purchase price, although it is for the purchase of the house, will, in fact, only be the site value, because nothing above site value can be obtained for a house which, ex hypothesis, would otherwise be subject to a demolition order. Under this Financial Resolution the local authorities will get a grant equal to half the cost of the site. In most cases that will represent a net advantage as compared with the immediate demolition of the house as part of a slum clearance scheme.
My right hon. Friend has reminded the Committee that the grants for the new houses which will replace the demolished slums take account of average or normal cost of the site. Not only will those grants be obtained in due course, but 50 per cent. of the cost of the site will have been provided by the Exchequer under this Resolution. In respect of the site, therefore, it is a definite net advantage to a local authority to retain a house in occupation for a period of time before proceeding to demolish and replace it. In considering the other grant provided by this Resolution—the unit grant per house—we have to bear that fact in mind.
The unit grant per house provided under the Resolution, as it is now before the Committee, is £3 per annum from the Exchequer, with £3 per annum from the rate fund. It has been assumed—and here I use the same figure as that of the hon. Member for Itchen (Mr. Morley)—that the usual rent for this type of house, certainly after patching, would be in the region of 8s. a week, or about £21 per annum.
The £21 in rent, plus the £6 in grant and from the rate fund, represent a sum of £27. Out of that £27 current repairs, maintenance and collection of rent has to be provided for. Once again, I accept the figure of the hon. Member for Itchen, namely, £12 per annum. Twelve pounds from £27 leaves us with £15 per annum available to the local authority for interest and amortisation on the cost of the patching work done to these houses, taken as a whole.
I am advised that £15 per annum over 15 years, at the current P.W.L.B. rate of interest, represents a capital sum of approximately £180: it is sufficient to amortise and pay interest on a capital sum of £180. It so happens that £180 is the average figure found to be necessary, per house, in the Birmingham scheme, so that, as an initial figure to write into the Financial Resolution, it seems that my right hon. Friend has now put before the Committee a very reasonable sum.
If it should be argued that £180 is lowish for restoring to reasonably habitable condition the type of house here envisaged, then I would remind the Committee that not every house in respect of

which these grants will be payable will necessarily require the full expenditure, or, indeed, anything like it. I do not need to stray from the terms of the Resolution. If the Committee approves it, it will be authorising grants
…in respect of houses purchased or held by local authorities for demolition but"—
and these are the operative words—
retained for temporary use for housing purposes….
There is nothing in this Resolution which says that this grant shall be paid only if and when any work whatsoever is done upon the houses. So there is no need for me to refer to Clause 2 of the Bill in elaboration of what is already implicit in the Resolution.
In practice, local authorities will be able to afford in the maximum case a substantially higher capital sum than £180 for the patching of a house. If they have a reasonably large scheme, with a reasonably large variety of houses included in it, they should find that in cases where it is necessary they can go well above £180 in putting a house into a decently habitable condition. A good deal of play was made—particularly by the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan)—with the words
such other sum as the Minister of Housing and Local Government may determine
which are contained in the Resolution. It is obvious that "such other sum" may be either a higher or lower sum.
If it be a higher sum, the right hon. Member argues that it will be a vicious precedent, amounting to taxation by Order. This however has nothing whatever to do with taxation; this is concerned with the increase of a grant from one public authority to another. It is a payment for the benefit of the subject; and it is a general principle that, subject to the financial control of the House, there is no constitutional objection to such action for the benefit of the subject being taken by Order. I should be the first to vote against this Resolution if it permitted anything of the character of taxation by Order.

Mr. Paget: Does the hon. Member really say that no constitutional principle is involved when we are asked to authorise payment of public money not by a Bill in the House, but by an Order of the Government?

Mr. Powell: There is certainly no constitutional objection to the House being asked, by affirmative Resolution, to authorise a payment of money. Indeed, that is a common way in other contexts in which the House does vote money—by Resolution.
Most of the right hon. Member's strictures, however, referred to the case in which the alternative sum would be not greater but less than that stated in the Resolution.

Mr. Mitchison: Would it make any difference to the hon. Member's views if no sum at all were specified—if £3 was not mentioned, but it was simply left as "such sum as the Minister might propose"?

Mr. Powell: I should certainly think that the Government had been remiss in bringing forward a Bill apparently without any presumption of the type of grant which was necessary to begin with, just as I should consider them remiss if they presented to the House a Bill with a cast-iron figure written in and left themselves no space to manœuvre in a matter where, as the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale admitted, there is very little precedent upon which to go.
I want to deal with the other case, on which he laid greater stress—that in which the sum might be reduced. He seemed to be labouring under the impression—and it would be a serious matter if it were right—that the Minister by administrative action, or the House by affirmative Resolution—I am not referring to the Bill, but both those methods might be used to reduce the payment of grants—might prejudice a local authority after it had entered into the relevant commitment.
I think that upon mature consideration the right hon. Gentleman opposite will find that that stricture is not justified. He will find that such grants as the Minister can reduce by administrative order are only the unit grants for actual patching work. They do not refer to the cost of acquisition, which, of course, ex hypothesi, would have been incurred anyhow by the local authority. So there is no question, on that score, of the local authority incurring expenditure and the Minister then withdrawing the grant which the authority was entitled to assume.

Mr. Paget: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us where the terms are for what he is now saying?

Mr. Powell: The hon. and learned Gentleman will probably notice the reference to paragraph (b) in Clause 5 (3), and if he will follow up that I think he will be satisfied. As regards the reduction of the grant by affirmative Resolution, hon. Members should have no difficulty in satisfying themselves that that will be only prospective in its effect and cannot be retrospective and that, therefore, no local authority can be damnified by a change in the terms of the grants which may in future be introduced.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: Why does the hon. Gentleman say that? Is he making the assumption that the Bill will emerge from the Committee as it is now?

Mr. Powell: I am certainly assuming that hon. Members opposite would not seek to amend the Bill in such a way as to render local authorities liable to find themselves committed to expenditure on the assumption of a grant which the House could withhold from them. I am crediting the Opposition with that degree of insight and restraint, but I am doing nothing more.
I feel that when the size of the grants provided by this Resolution is worked out carefully, when the effect upon the finances of the authorities is weighed against whatever evidence we have at present from the Birmingham scheme and from the figures which up and down the country are generally agreed by the local authorities' financial experts, the Committee should be satisfied that for a first estimate these are the right figures and that the conditions by which the grant is hedged around in this Financial Resolution are not such as are likely to expose to embarrassment local authorities taking advantage of them.

5.26 p.m.

Mr. C. W. Gibson: The only remark I would make in reply to the last few words of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) is that there is not a finance officer anywhere in local government who would agree with him, and that the finance officers have submitted very cogent and detailed arguments in writing to the very contrary.
The real bone of contention here is as to whether the moneys provided by this Money Resolution are sufficient to get the job done. The Minister has changed his mind twice, and each time raised the figure for repair and maintenance. He started off on the wrong basis. He made an assumption as to the costs that were likely to be incurred in acquisition and in repair and maintenance and added management cost and deducted from that rent and assumed that if on the resultant figure he gave half to the local authorities he would be doing a good thing.
For many years now local housing authorities have been in the habit of getting subsidies based on the principle of three to one, and in spite of that, as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hampstead (Mr. H. Brooke) said, the rate charge not only for houses but for other services is beginning to reach breaking point, and something will have to be done about it. I have tried once or twice to suggest the kind of thing that might be done to ease the burden.
It would not be in order, perhaps, to go over that now, but of the fact that the burden is there, there is no doubt, and if this Money Resolution adds to that burden it will make things very much more difficult for the housing authorities. I am not at all surprised, therefore, that about the only sentence the Minister used with which everybody agreed inside and outside Parliament was that in which he said no one was completely satisfied. Frankly, I do not see how anyone could be.
The actual cost of an experiment which we have seen already in Birmingham, and the experience that other local authorities have had in handling this kind of problem, shows that we must assume something like £200 a house if these old and dilapidated houses to which this Resolution mainly refers are to be put into a condition to enable them to continue to be used by human beings. I am told by reliable authorities that there are over 200,000 houses in London that were built before 1870. It means that practically the whole of these houses are in the category to be dealt with under the Clause of the Bill concerning old and dilapidated houses.
Anybody who has had experience of handling complaints from tenants knows the kind of thing from which these houses

are likely to suffer—leaky roofs, very expensive to repair; window frames that do not fit, that are worn out; doors which do not fit; foundations that are slipping; lack of damp courses; things of that kind which have to be dealt with by the local authorities if the houses are to be patched up so as to keep rain and wind out.
We cannot do that in London for any house at anything like the figure that the Minister used in the basis of his calculations. The finance officers of the local authorities' associations say it should be at least £200. My view is that today this sort of work would cost very much more than £200. Yet all that this Resolution provides in the way of subsidies is a total of £45. That, theoretically, is meant to be half of the cost. So it is assumed we can patch these houses up and make them reasonably fit to live in for the next 10 or 15 years for about £90 each. Any owner-occupier in London could tell the Committee how untrue that is, especially in dealing with houses that are anything from 75 to 100 years old, which are the sorts of houses with which we shall be dealing in the great towns like London.
I suggest that the Committee ought not to let this Motion go because it will be so unfair to the local authorities that have to do the work, and that if we let it go the almost inevitable result will be that the Minister's suggestion that there might not be much done will come true. There will not be much done because, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) said, the rates are already reaching the position where even Socialist councils are beginning to scratch their heads over the problem of where to find the money to do the things we all agree ought to be done.
It seems to me, therefore, that it would be a good thing for the Minister to have second thoughts about this matter. He knows that nobody in the local government services is satisfied; none of the local government associations which have discussed this matter is satisfied that the amount which the Bill will provide will enable the authority to do this job of patching up for the next 10 or 15 years without incurring a very heavy extra charge on the local rates. Where those rates are already reaching the point of breaking, that means that the work will not be done unless the Minister later introduces some new proposals to increase


the amount. It may be assumed that the provision whereby he is enabled to deal with the matter by Order is an acceptance of the fact that he expects to have to put more money in, but the danger is that that action will not be taken.
I therefore beg the House not to approve the Money Resolution. That may delay the Bill a little, but it need not delay it for long. I beg the House to reject this Resolution and to say, in effect, that the Minister must have another look at the problem and see whether the extremely reliable figures which have been produced by those who have spent their lives in local government service cannot be regarded as a true basis upon which to build up Treasury assistance to the local authorities who do this work. If he does that he will take a very important step in tackling the worst aspects of the housing problem in London.

5.32 p.m.

Mr. John Hay: It will probably be completely out of order, Sir Rhys, but I think we ought not to neglect this opportunity of saying how pleased every hon. Member is to see you in the Chair after the distinction recently conferred upon you.
This debate has been somewhat unusual. I came to the House this week having read in all the newspapers that a most violent and vitriolic attack was to be made upon this Money Resolution. We were told that the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) would open the attack upon us. Indeed, he has returned in very good form from his visit to the East. He is not the first person who has come back from Egypt showing a very adequate knowledge of how to make bricks without straw. The right hon. Gentleman gave a wonderful demonstration this afternoon of how to make a speech seeking to create some prejudice and some attack upon the Government out of very little material.
He tried to explain, or pretended to explain, that this Resolution would impose some very great burden upon local authorities. Unfortunately, he had been preceded by my right hon. Friend the Minister, who had explained very dearly, I thought, that this is only a very small aspect of the general slum clearance drive in which the Government are about

to engage. When hon. Members like the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Morley) and the hon. Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson) give figures of how they expect their own local authorities to be affected and try to draw up all kinds of calculations showing that they will be vastly out of pocket, they neglect to inform either the Committee or themselves that what this Money Resolution seeks to do is merely to provide a little money not only from Exchequer sources but also from local authority funds to do the most urgent, and obviously only the most rudimentary, jobs of patching houses which must come down as soon as they can be fitted into the slum clearance programme.
I should have thought, if the amount of the Exchequer grant is to be so small, and if local authorities are so worried about being able to do the job with so small a grant, that that would be an inducement to them to pull these houses down as quickly as they can. I therefore think that my right hon. Friend has struck a very wise balance. He has avoided making these grants so attractive to local authorities as to create a serious risk that they will keep the houses in being and reasonably well maintained for a longer period than they ought. On the other hand, he has made the grants sufficiently unattractive to local authorities to make those authorities decide to go ahead with demolition as quickly as they conveniently can.
In common, I suppose, with practically all hon. Members, I have received representations from local authorities about the amount of the grants. The representations which I have received have been in connection with the rural areas; I have several rural district councils in my constituency and two urban district councils. I think the rural district councils have come to an entirely wrong conclusion about the scope of the provision which we are discussing today, because I imagine that this proposal will have to be implemented in only a comparatively small number of cases and then principally in the larger towns.
In those larger towns where there is a big slum clearance problem, and where the capacity and the resources of the local authority may not, here and now, be adequate to carry out the complete programme within the very few years which


the Government envisaged, some provision of this kind—as in the Bill, supplemented by the Money Resolution—is necessary so that they can deal with that little part of the number of unfit houses which will have to be kept in being and occupied for a few years until their time for demolition comes.
I imagine that over most of the big towns in England and Wales we shall find, in the three years which the Minister has in mind as the period within which he wants to make his review, that local authorities will not have very much recourse to this Clause—and I am not referring to the details of the Clause—or to the grants which will be made in respect of it.
In the rural areas, about which I am now speaking, I think the position is even better, because, naturally, in the rural parts of the country we have very few clearance areas; they are an urban characteristic. We have, of course, the unfit house which is subject to a demolition order or which is a "candidate" for such an order. I think that in the rural areas there will be even less reason for local authorities to delay the demolition of such houses and therefore to have recourse to these Government grants.
To sum up, I think the Opposition, in making such a big play with this matter, have taken entirely the wrong line. I should have been far happier had they said that they had considered the matter carefully and had decided that this was an essential part of the important social experiment which is being undertaken by the Government. They may, of course—nodoubt in Committee they will—move Amendments to the Clause of the Bill which corresponds to this Money Resolution. Indeed, there are a number of things which I should have liked to discuss with the Minister, but I cannot do that now. Bearing in mind the comparative smallness of this question and the other grounds which I have mentioned, I should have thought the Opposition would have taken rather a different line from that which they have taken today.
I join with my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. H. Brooke) here; for I, too, have examined the financial aspect of this point very carefully. I am not at all certain that any serious consequences from these provisions will ensue

to local authorities. As I have said, the smallness of the grant—if it is claimed to be a small grant—will be an added inducement to local authorities to hurry up with the work of demolition. I believe we also should realise that local funds should make a proper contribution towards this work and that an unduly heavy proportion of the cost should not fall upon national funds. In the comparatively small number of cases which will be affected, I think that, on the whole, the provision will work very well. I therefore hope that the Committee will approve the Money Resolution and that we shall be enabled to get on to the consideration of the Bill and to see it on the Statute Book as quickly as possible.

5.40 p.m.

Mr. James MacColl: There is only one thing in the speech of the Minister for which I could not really forgive him. That was his remarks about the local authorities who ought to be proud that they were now being allowed to incur 50 per cent. of the cost. I thought that was rather like the argument of a seedy and improvident father raiding his son's money box to get the price of a drink and then exhorting the protesting boy to be proud that he was growing up and able to share in the family expenses. It does not lie in the mouth of the right hon. Gentleman to preach to local authorities in that way and tell them that they ought to grow up when he is not going to give them a flexible income to enable them to undertake that responsibility.
He seems to be endeavouring in this way to put a wholly unfair financial obligation on the local authority. I think that in a way the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me when I say that I think it is a little impertinent for him and his hon. Friends to say to the local authorities, "If we give you too much money and make too generous an advance then you may not demolish these houses as quickly as they ought to be demolished." Why should not the boot be on the other foot? Why are we to assume that all the virtues and desires for progress rests on the central Government and not on the local government? The converse of that argument is true. If we demolish houses then the central Government's grant is going to be at a three-to-one ratio and if we maintain property we are keeping it at 50–50 ratio. Therefore, there is an incentive on the central Government to damp


down the slum clearance and encourage patching in order to reduce the burden on central Government's funds.
That being so, I think that it ought to be assumed that local authorities have the desire to carry out their housing duties and to carry them out vigorously and well if they have the resources to do so. I had a little difficulty in following the rather theological background which the right hon. Gentleman gave to this Money Resolution. I had a little difficulty, in reading through the Money Resolution, to put it in this elevated spiritual context, but it seemed to me that the most appropriate theological comment is that the basic approach of the Government to this problem, as to most others, was:
For he that hath, to him shall be given: and he that hath not, from him shall be taken even that which he hath.
The effect of this Resolution will be that those authorities who have a small slum clearance problem will be able to balance their books because they will not have a large number of slums to demolish and, therefore, the total size of their programme will be small. Because the total size of their programme will be small, they will not have recourse to patching and temporarily maintaining these houses and, therefore, they can carry out their programme without this great burden on their resources.
If their resources are those of a prosperous coastal resort or a large residential area their problem will be small, but in the large industrial areas, with a considerable amount of old property dating back 50 or 100 years, the local authority will have a large problem of slum clearance to deal with and, therefore, their rate of dealing with it will be slow. In that case they will have to use more of these facilities for temporary maintenance of property and the burden falling on their already impoverished resources will be proportionately greater. Therefore, it seems to me that this Financial Resolution is a deliberate discrimination against the poorer industrial area with low rateable value and a large slum clearance problem.
There is really a fallacy behind the whole of the right hon. Gentleman's approach to these financial questions. He is trying to work on a national average and trying to apply a national average

to the individual situations of particular local authorities. As I think one of my hon. Friends has suggested, the national average may be a bit "phoney"—I think it probably is—but even assuming the figure of £3 a week taken over the country as a whole as being a fair one, it still will not be fair in the case of Individual authorities. In the first place, there are wide variations of cost in different parts of the country.
Therefore, a particular authority in a particular area with a particular number of old properties will not find the average works out over its area. It seems to me, in view of these difficulties, that it would have been wiser, if we are going to have an experiment, that rather than start with a unit grant we should have had a percentage grant to begin with until we see where we are and what is to be the size of the problem. Afterwards, if we want to, we might be able to apply a unit grant when we have some measurement of the size of the problem.
To start with, a unit grant of this sort seems to me to make the problem absolutely impossible of solution for a large number of local authorities. I will quote one particular example. We have had a speech by the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. H. Brooke), to whom this problem seemed to have no difficulty. I should like to put forward the position of a Metropolitan borough very near Hampstead. It so happens that in Paddington—I speak as a member of the Council and not as a representative of Paddington—we went in for the purchase of a large amount of property which had been due for redevelopment, not most of it slum property but most of it property coming under the overcrowding conditions of the 1936 Act and, therefore, not the very worst type of property.
I have not absolute figures to quote, but my guess would be that that property was costing us on an average about £25 a unit, that is a flat, tenement or whatever it is, year by year to maintain it. If that figure is to be characteristic of a number of boroughs which have particularly bad terraces of property, the proportion will not come out at anything like 50–50. In the case of Paddington, at a conservative estimate it will be something like seven to one against the local authority.

Mr. Powell: Surely the hon. Gentleman is confusing the two types of grant. The £25 is the amortisation and interest on the purchase price of that property. Now, 50 per cent. of that will be found by Government grant.

Mr. MacColl: I can only say for the sake of the ratepayers of Paddington that I wish I were confusing the grant, but I am not.
Amortisation charges are not heavy at all because often this property is the tag end of leasehold and is virtually given to us. I am quoting the figures of what it would cost the local authorities to keep this property in a tolerable state of repair, and I am not including any loan charges in my figures. Surely it is up to the right hon. Gentleman to go to some of the local authorities and not to take a national average and only negotiate with national associations, but to look at the problem facing a large number of individual authorities which will not be able to come anywhere near bearing the cost of doing this work if it is to be done.
I think—I may have misunderstood the position and, if so, I willingly withdraw—that the weakness of the argument of the right hon. Gentleman was shown when he was talking about the Birmingham scheme. I understand that the Birmingham scheme comes more or less under town and country planning legislation and, therefore, it presumably includes a wide variety of property. With a wide variety of good and bad property, obviously the cost of the better property would be less on average than the cost of the poorer and slum property which would be more than the average, and on that basis the swings and the roundabouts would balance. If we are dealing with an area that is a clearance area under the Housing Acts, as we must if a house is in temporary occupation under the provisions of this Bill, that property is bound by the very definition of a clearance area to be poorer in quality than in an area under a town and country planning scheme.
Therefore, an average based on the experience of an authority functioning under town and country planning or analogous legislation is bound to be wholly irrelevant to the problems of an authority which is functioning under the Housing Acts and acquiring property

which is unfit for human habitation, injurious to health and all the rest, under the clearance area procedure and maintaining it as temporary accommodation.
That is why the Minister condemned himself out of his own mouth in quoting the Birmingham figures as a justification for the fantastically low figure of £3. My experience may be unique, but all I can say from what I have seen in the two boroughs which I know—Widnes, which I represent, and Paddington, in which I am a member of the authority—is that they are not talking the same language as the right hon. Gentleman. They are talking, not in terms of £1 13s., £2 10s., or £3, but in terms of £15, £16 and £20 as the cost which must be met out of public funds. I beg the Minister, before he rivets this Financial Resolution down upon the scheme and kills the scheme as far as any practical value is concerned, to postpone the Resolution and to take into account the rates of individual authorities with particularly difficult problems.
It is no happiness whatsoever to a big industrial area to be told that some other area can solve the problem and that, therefore, the average is fair all over the country. It is the individual industrial area with an enormous inheritance of bad property which must somehow balance its books and find the rates with which to pay its expenses. The Minister ought to look at their problems and experience and base his financial provisions on a percentage grant.

5.52 p.m.

Mr. A. Blenkinsop: I think we would all agree that my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) has blown sky high the arguments that have been put forward from the other side of the Committee. There are no more arguments, apparently, to be raised by hon. Members opposite on this vital subject for local authorities than those we have already heard. It is a matter of concern to all of us who have had representations from local authorities that this matter should be dismissed so lightheartedly by hon. Members on the other side.
Only last week-end I attended a conference of local authorities representing bodies throughout the North-East Coast. They made very strong representations


with regard to the revised financial provisions which we are now discussing. They most strongly urged the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes has so clearly put before the Committee. They made the point, not that this is a matter in which local authorities will come out all square, as, apparently, hon. Members opposite seem to imagine; not even that it will cost the local authority a rate burden of 2d., which my hon. Friend the Member for Itchen (Mr. Morley) mentioned as the fortunate position of his own area; they insist—they are probably right in their calculations—that this may well mean a rate burden of anything from 6d. to l0d. in the £ to many local authorities on the North-East Coast.
That shows how utterly lacking in any appreciation of the problems of industrial areas are hon. Members on the Government side. They have given voice to the suggestion that this is only a minor problem affecting merely a few local authorities. That is simply not true. I wonder whether any hon. Members opposite have had the opportunity, as I have had, of meeting many of the representatives of the local authorities, not only of the very large boroughs, with their enormous accumulated problems, but also the mining areas, with their terrible relics stretching over the mining areas of Yorkshire, Lancashire, Durham and Northumberland, to mention only a few. It is nonsense to suggest that only a few of these authorities are concerned with the financial provisions. The great bulk of them are affected, and for them these provisions are simply unworkable.
Let me mention a few of the authorities that have raised this matter with me. I regret that the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Miss Ward) is not present, because her area was one of the county boroughs which made strong representations at the recent conference which I attended. There is the question of areas like Gateshead, and mining areas all over County Durham. South Shields, for example, state that they have something like 15,000 houses in their area alone—more than half their total number of houses—which, they believe, will have to come under the operation of the Bill and the Financial Resolution. They say that the provisions which are being made are completely unworkable.
The Minister told us in his speech that he had given special consideration to the Birmingham experience. As my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes pointed out, Birmingham's financial experience is based on the much wider powers that Birmingham possesses—and it is not for us to discuss now whether the Minister will make that possible throughout the country. But in the last issue of the "Municipal Journal," which, I think, the right hon. Gentleman would agree is the organ of a responsible body, to whom he sends his annual message of good wishes year by year, as Ministers in his position have done regularly, it is pointed out that the rents and repairs proposals may mean 6d. on the rates; that, again, is an average figure.
The "Municipal Journal" points out, by quotations from speeches which have been made and from contributions by Alderman Bradbeer, of Birmingham, that the experience of Birmingham suggests that the whole financial calculations on which the Minister has presumably based his revised offer of £3 are wide of the mark. The figures are set out in an article which the right hon. Gentleman must have had referred to him. If he has not seen it, I urge him to take the opportunity of withdrawing the Financial Resolution and giving these detailed figures further consideration, so that he can make proposals that come somewhere near to meeting the urgent needs of the great bulk of local authorities.
We have had to assume many of the figures that the right hon. Gentleman is proposing, because he has not told us yet what are his precise detailed assumptions; we simply have to guess them. There is his assumption, for example, that the average capital expenditure on reconditioning will be of the nature of £150 to £160. That, to begin with, is completely inaccurate. As some of my hon. Friends have mentioned, it is much more likely to be in the nature of £200. In addition, the figures on which the right hon. Gentleman may be basing his calculations which suggest that a rent of 8s. net per week can fairly be chargeable on this property, are very doubtful. After all, rent figures vary greatly, and they fluctuate also with the great variations in wage rates up and down the country.

Mr. Powell: Then why did the same "Municipal Journal" assume that


figure of 8s. for rent in their previous calculations in their issue of 20th November, and why did the Institute of Municipal Treasurers and Accountants, in their December journal, use the same figure as being a fair one?

Mr. Blenkinsop: For, I suppose, the same reason that the Minister finds that his calculations need revision, those who write in the "Municipal Journal" find that they need to make revisions. They have put down a more applicable figure of 7s. as one which, certainly in many parts of the country, much more fairly applies, which would, of course, mean a considerable change of the whole working out of the proposals.
We are very much in the dark on one aspect of the matter and we expected the right hon. Gentleman to give us some figures and to explain how he arrived at his offer of £3, because if he had done so then we might have been able to get on to the details of where he has gone wrong and try more effectively to put him right. I would agree with what my right hon. Friend said, that we cannot work upon any average figure at all. We must be able to deal with the special problems of many of these areas.
At the conference which I attended last week-end it was unanimously agreed by the local authorities that there must be a reversion to the proportion which they regard as the reasonable proportion of three to one; that there should be a revision of that figure and the annual payments made; and that a special additional sum should be made available for those areas where the heaviest burden has to be met. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that he is living in a completely different world if he thinks that the proposals he has made here are proposals which will enable the local authorities in many areas to touch what we are all agreed is an unpleasant task, which they do not want to carry out and for which there is no eagerness on their part. They are only eager to do the job of pulling the property down, though that cannot be tackled within a short time.
Many of them. I found, were wondering whether the proposals offered in this Financial Resolution were proposals that the Minister is contemplating applying in due course to other housing provisions. What the right hon. Gentleman said this afternoon would certainly

aggravate those fears. He said that the local authorities should be proud to accept a fifty-fifty relationship. Surely, if that is true, it means that the Minister also has in his mind the possibility of applying some similar relationship in other fields, too. I can assure him that that is the anxiety which his remarks have created, and I am sure that what he said will convince everybody on this side of the Committee, and, I hope, some hon. Members on the other side, that this Financial Resolution must be opposed.

6.3 p.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: I hope enough has been said by my hon. Friends, and particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) to convince the Minister that there are a number of local authorities to whom special considerations apply. In passing, I must say I am very glad to see the Minister giving so much personal attention to this matter. I can quite understand the Minister, in the calculations he is making and in his discussions with representatives of local authorities, taking a national view of the problem. He has no doubt had to work on averages, and as he said himself, he has had to work out a kind of hypothetical average case.
But it has now been abundantly revealed, and I hope it will be faced fully by the Minister, that there are a number of special areas where the problem of delayed demolition is particularly acute. There are areas of great concentration of population, particularly in some of the Metropolitan boroughs, one of which, Islington, I represent, where unfortunately the bulk of the property was built about 100 years ago. Therefore, there is a great deal of property which is ripe for demolition.
The Minister said in one part of his speech that he did not want the local authorities to use the powers they are being given under Part I of this Bill to avoid the much more important work of slum clearance. We all agree with that, but unfortunately it is the case that there are some boroughs which cannot proceed as rapidly as they would like with slum clearance and demolition. That is acutely the case in Islington. The Minister may be aware that in the borough of Islington there is a housing


waiting list of some 15,000 families; there is a great degree of overcrowding; there are 14,000 basement rooms all being used for habitation which ought to have been condemned and closed a long time ago and where some 5,000 families are living. The housing problem is therefore particularly desperate in Islington, and it is impossible for the borough council to do slum clearance on a large scale because there are no sites available, and if there were, the problem of decanting adds to the existing demand for rehousing.
Local authorities such as Islington, would prefer to deal with slum clearance on a large scale if they could, but unfortunately there is nowhere in the borough where they can do it. They will find themselves compelled to fall back on deferred demolition; but to do this they must get adequate financial assistance. What grieves me about this Financial Resolution is that, when it was put down in its amended form by the Minister, it appeared to give some hope to local authorities situated in that special category that they would have some special treatment.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) pointed out, the actual terms of this Financial Resolution are something of a constitutional innovation. In terms they give power to the Government of the day to make grants of an unlimited amount without Parliamentary control. I myself have never seen before a Financial Resolution which places no upper limit on the amount which the Government may spend.
There is no question here of any reserve of Parliamentary control. Reference was made by the Minister to the fact that he might have a review in two or three years' time and come to Parliament for an affirmative Resolution to increase this amount from £3 to £4 or £5. If we look at the Financial Resolution as it stands, it gives the Minister power to make a contribution of £3
or such other sum as the Minister of Housing and Local Government made determine for each such house….
There is nothing there about an affirmative Resolution.

Mr. A. Woodburn: It is subsection (4) of Clause 5.

Mr. Fletcher: My right hon. Friend mentions subsection (4), but at the moment we are dealing with the Financial Resolution. It enables the Committee to consider certain Clauses of the Bill. But no one knows how that Bill will emerge from Committee. All one knows is that it will not emerge from Committee in the same form as that in which it is now. There are a hundred Amendments down, for the Minister himself invited constructive criticism of the Bill. Constructive criticism there will be, but this is not the moment to discuss the details of the Bill.
We can consider only the Financial Resolution, and it is within the terms of that Resolution that the Bill may be amended and varied in a multitude of ways. For myself, I am very glad that the Minister has made this innovation and has put down a Financial Resolution which, on the face of it, appears to me to give the maximum possible opportunity of amending the Bill in Committee. I think I must be right in saying that within the framework of this Resolution, which I would hope would pass but for the reason that the Minister has given, and if other reasons which I propose to indicate to him—

Mr. Macmillan: I hope the hon. Gentleman will vote for it.

Mr. Fletcher: That depends on what the Minister says in reply to the remarks I am going to make. At the moment I am seeking to show that if one discounted the unfortunate remarks made by the Minister in moving this Financial Resolution, it would seem to give the Committee the maximum opportunity of making desirable Amendments to the Bill in Committee, because it appears to empower the Minister to increase the contribution of £3 by such sum as he may determine.
I appreciate that the Minister did not recommend the Financial Resolution to the Committee on that ground, and because of that I think there will be consternation amongst local authorities who read his speech. The right hon. Gentleman said that he has had many negotiations with local authorities in the past, and he told us something of what he said to them. The right hon. Gentleman told us how he first thought that 33s. would be an appropriate figure, then 45s., and now 60s. He has not told us the figures for which the local authorities


were asking. He has not told us that at one of the conferences the local authorities thought that the appropriate figure would be nearer £12 or £13. No local authority will be satisfied with this figure, still less will those with the acute slum clearance and deferred demolition problems to which I have been referring.
When the Minister put down this revised Financial Resolution I, for one, was under the impression—apparently a mistaken one in view of what the right hon. Gentleman has now said—that he was seeking to give himself power to deal in a special way with local authorities who have particularly acute problems of slum clearance, slum demolition and deferred demolition. The average may be all right—I do not quarrel with that—but in arriving at an average it means that there are many local authorities in heavily concentrated areas, such as Islington where the houses were mainly built 100 years ago, with special problems. Unless they have substantially more than £3, the burden falling upon the rates will be intolerable. It is in areas like this that I should have thought the Minister would be anxious to see some of this work done.
We all agree that slums must be demolished where that can be done, but where unhappily thousands of people will be condemned for the next 10 or 15 years to live in slum or near-slum conditions, to live in basement dwellings that ought to have been demolished years ago, and where there are other conditions of an appalling nature, there it is essential in their interests—as the Minister said, as an act of Christian charity—that there should be a certain amount of patching. Some boroughs may have to do much more patching than others. No borough will want to do more patching or to make it last longer than is necessary. I do not think any local authority will want to spend undue sums on this work, but a good deal of expenditure is necessary if the Minister is to achieve the result he has set himself to achieve.
As my right hon. Friend said, why cannot the Minister even now amend this Financial Resolution in such a way that the £3 can be interpreted as a minimum? Why should not the Minister say that, if this Financial Resolution is passed, he will make the necessary Amendments in

the Bill during the Committee stage to give himself the power to make special arrangements with certain local authorities? What would be wrong with that? Why should local authorities who have the most serious problem under Part I be penalised by having to impose an unduly heavy rate burden on their ratepayers? Why should there not be a minimum of £3 under this Financial Resolution? If it is passed as it stands, why should not the Minister say that he will make special arrangements with certain local authorities who can prove hardship and a case of grievance?
Until the Minister spoke today, I was under the impression that this was his intention, and I am sure that many local authorities thought that, too. Few could have thought that the right hon. Gentleman meant that he would wait two or three years before asking Parliament to revise the basic figure of £3. This problem cannot wait two or three years. If the Minister is serious in wanting local authorities to get on with the work, they must get on with it now, and to do that they must know that they will get an adequate contribution from the Exchequer. The Minister must by now be convinced that £3 a house is grossly inadequate in the case of a large number of local authorities. Then surely, within the cover of this Financial Resolution, he can make whatever Amendments are necessary in Clauses 6 and 7 to give himself latitude to increase the minimum of £3 in cases where it is necessary.
In urging that course on the Minister, I agree with everything which my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale said about the constitutional dubiety and sense of innovation that the Minister has shown. Yet the Financial Resolution is his proposal and it is so novel that, as I read it, it takes away normal Parliamentary control over finance. This problem of providing adequate housing accommodation for people who, until houses are built in densely populated areas, are condemned to live in in sanitary and unhealthy conditions, is so great that I think it would be justified. Therefore, I urge the Minister to say something to encourage the local authorities of the nature I have mentioned to get on with this work and to have some hope that the £3 may be regarded as a minimum.

6.18 p.m.

Mrs. Harriet Slater: I want to add my plea for the large industrial areas to the pleas made already by my hon. Friends on this side of the Committee. This is a very large problem we are discussing and I want respectfully to suggest that the Christian charity about which we have heard so much has in the past been so small that hon. Members opposite, and members of local authorities of the Conservative Party, created the problem about which we are speaking.
In Stoke-on-Trent, the division which I represent, the local authority has already drawn up its slum clearance programme for the next 10 years and it is faced with a problem of 12,000, not 2,000 houses. That is a colossal problem which will place a heavy burden on my local authority. Because of the planning of the Stoke-on-Trent Housing Committee, and because of the forethought and energy which a Labour-controlled council has put into its housing programme, this year we shall be top of the league of the county boroughs in our building record. During the last four months we have been able to start on some of our slum clearance programme. So when I am speaking on behalf of Stoke-on-Trent I am speaking for a local authority which has already begun to face its problems.
Having said that, may I say that the city treasurer does not join the ranks of those who are satisfied with the provisions made in the proposed Financial Resolution, but is most dissatisfied with them. For instance, in Stoke-on-Trent we have an added burden—a burden which will probably be a heavy one for many local authorities—in that when we start to patch up many of those houses which will have to be patched up during the next five, 10 or 15 years, we shall run across the difficulties created by mining subsidence. That may add a burden which will far exceed the suggested figure of £150 or £180. As has been suggested by some of the local authorities in the northeast of England who have put their case, that is one point which has not been taken into consideration at all.
There is another difficulty. My local authority area is one in which the rent is very low. The suggested figure of 8s., which has been mentioned in the calculations which have been made, will be very

much lower in an area like that of Stoke-on-Trent. A figure of 7s. has also been suggested, but in my local authority area it is suggested that the figure may be even as low as 5s. or 5s. 6d. That means that the figure which has been used in the Minister's calculations will leave a local authority like that of Stoke-on-Trent with a very much greater debit than that of some other local authorities.
The Financial Resolution also shows that there has been no real estimate of what will be required to put a house in a state of repair and that there has been no consideration at all of the added burden which will fall upon many local authorities whose staffs have to be increased in order to make inquiries and to see that the necessary repairs are carried out. In addition, there is no suggestion that any consideration will be given to the local authorities which may be in a position of not recovering in rent the amount which they estimated when they first prepared their programme. That loss of rent will be a further charge on an expenditure which will have to fall on the corporation.
I therefore add my plea to the pleas already made for a reconsideration of this matter. I plead on behalf of a local authority like that of Stoke-on-Trent in whose area there is a very big problem connected with houses which are unfit for habitation because in the Industrial Revolution those houses were quickly thrown up, often in the midst of bad factories which had been equally quickly thrown up. I add my plea also on behalf of many hundreds of working men and women who will be condemned to live in these houses for the next 10 or 15 years while at the same time they are turning out some of the loveliest pottery in the world and are making a great contribution to the economy and productivity of the country. I therefore ask the Minister to look into the question of how far special consideration can be given to the problems of large industrial areas.

6.25 p.m.

Mr. W. E. Wheeldon: Although most of the points which I had wished to make have already been made by my hon. Friends, I want to emphasise that I consider, as I think every local authority considers, the Money Resolution attached to this


Bill to be a most unjust one. It is particularly unjust and unfair in relation to the maintenance grant. At Question time yesterday, the Minister asked us to wait until today to obtain from him the figures on which this grant was to be based, but he was very reluctant to give information even today. He has given the Committee no indication at all of the figures which he finally accepted as the figures to form the basis of the grant. He said in effect, "After all, there is very little experience on which I can go."
That may be true, and that point was emphasised by hon. Members opposite, but in circumstances of that kind, was it not the proper and most appropriate thing to go to that one authority which has had the experience which the City of Birmingham has had? The scheme in Birmingham is, of course, not on all fours with the scheme under this Bill; nevertheless, in essentials there is information available there on which the Minister could have worked. Why has he not done so? Why has he ignored almost completely the facts which are available in Birmingham? Why has he not taken from Birmingham the advice of the largest local authority in this country outside London?
Let us look at the figures which comprise this total grant. First, for reconditioning expenditure a figure of £180 has been mentioned as the average cost in Birmingham. But that figure referred to two years ago. Contracts that have been made over the last 12 months show that the figure is now running at £195. What is more, the expressed opinion of the authority within the last few days is that a figure of £300 can be substantiated as the appropriate figure for expenditure on these houses under the Birmingham scheme; but, as has been pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl), some of the houses which were taken over in Birmingham were much better houses than those which will be taken over under this Bill.
We had the advantage, therefore, in respect of some houses of being able to spend much less than the amount that will probably be required in respect of the majority of houses covered by this Bill. Yet our figure in Birmingham amounts to £200 at least. I know from personal experience on the local authority for some years, and particularly during the

time when this scheme was in operation, that if one had then had regard in Birmingham to the type of house that would come within the limits of this Bill, in respect of very many of them a sum of £300 or £350 would be by no means low for the cost of reconditioning.
There we had a scheme comprising about 30,000 houses. We have dealt already with 26,000. Why could not the Minister have had regard to the experience of Birmingham when fixing the sum mentioned in the Money Resolution? I suggest that had he done so he would never have agreed to the sum of £3 per house per annum for 15 years which is provided. I believe that that figure is utterly inadequate, and I do not think that any local authority in the country will say otherwise. It will mean that every local authority will have an unfair burden to bear.
The second factor is in respect of repairs. Here again, we do not know what was in the Minister's mind. It has been suggested that the figure was £12. If that is the figure it is far too low. The figure of £12 is taken in respect of the calculation for the subsidy for ordinary houses, but these are quite different houses. I believe I am right in saying—although I have not checked it—that a figure of £15 was accepted as a repairs figure in respect of reconditioned houses.
Another factor in regard to the grant is rent, and in some respects that is the most important factor of all. We have no information from the Minister on the figure taken for a weekly net rent, but it is suggested that the figure is 8s. a week. Again, referring to the experience of Birmingham, I find that the average net rent was 6s. 5d. a week—much lower, of course, than 8s. In some authorities I would say that the rent figure would be much lower than the figure for Birmingham. Apart from London, I would say that the rents of working-class houses in Birmingham are probably higher than in the majority of local authority areas in this country.
The importance of this matter of rents was pointed out in that admirable paper presented to the conference of borough treasurers a few weeks ago by the city treasurer of Manchester and. I believe, by the borough treasurer of Acton. They


pointed out that if the rent was overstated to the extent of 1s. a week, subsidies would be deficient by £212s. per house per annum. Therefore, the difference between 8s. and 6s. 5d. in Birmingham would mean £52,000 a year on that one item. It would mean a considerable item to some of the authorities where the majority of working-class property is from80 to 100 years old.
What are local authorities to do about that? If they are unable to maintain rents at a level which the Minister has accepted as part of the grant, it will upset their housing revenue accounts. Either the tenants or ordinary municipal houses will have a further burden placed upon them, or the rate fund will be compelled to make a correspondingly higher contribution. That is one way in which the deficiency can be met. There is an alternative and perhaps it is the one which the Minister has in mind. He can suggest to local authorities that they attempt to increase the rent of the houses taken over. We ought to be told whether that is the intention. If it is, I say it is a most unfair proposal, and it is something which I believe cannot possibly be justified.
These houses are by definition houses which are unfit for human habitation. Even when money has been spent on them, many will still be without a separate lavatory, without an inside water supply, without a bathroom, or a fixed bath of any kind. They are houses which hon. Members would never for a moment agree were desirable for themselves. Yet people may have lived in those conditions for nearly 40 years and the rent has been paid week by week, even the controlled rent, while in many instances not a penny was being spent on repairs except in cases in which the sanitary inspector and the local authority compelled money to be spent.
By reason of the way in which this rent factor is included in the grant, we are saying in effect that the moment some little patching by way of repairs is done, despite all those years these people are to be compelled to pay increased rent. If local authorities attempt to do that, not only will they meet with resistance from tenants, but the public will regard it as something which is intolerable and something which ought not to be applied. Yet,

so long as the Minister refrains from giving us the information on which this calculation has been based, we have the right to infer that he has in mind that local authorities will increase the rents of those houses for the reasons I have mentioned.
I hope that even now the Minister will find it possible to make some alteration to his original proposal. If he does not do so, he will have against him—as I think he already knows—the views and strong opinions of practically every local authority in the country. It is wrong of hon. Members to suggest that, simply because grants are increased to local authorities, willy-nilly some irresponsibility on the part of those local authorities is to be expected. Generally speaking, members of local authorities have just as great a sense of responsibility in the spending of money as hon. Members of this Committee. These grants and this Money Resolution entirely fail to meet the situation as we know it to be.

6.39 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Hale: I do not wish to detain the Committee for more than a moment or two, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mrs. Slater) has already said in respect of Stoke some of the things I intended to say in respect of Oldham, which has a similar problem. I am sure that the Committee is very grateful for the very informed speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath (Mr. Wheeldon) and for the figures he has given us. They are of very great importance.
There is a very small point connected with Oldham on which I should like to ask a question at once while I have it in mind and I hope that it may be dealt with in the Minister's reply. In Oldham, unfortunately, we have many old houses of the back-to-back type. We have some streets in which back-to-back houses still exist in a condition not quite so intolerable as in some other cases. Where they are in good, short streets running parallel with other streets of back-to-back houses, it seems to me, expressing a casual view, that if one tried to save these houses at all—one does not like to save them, but Oldham has peculiar difficulties—there might be a question of turning two back-to-back houses into one. They are very small:


they are not in a bad condition, and at comparatively small expense two inadequate back-to-back houses could be made into one adequate house. If that is done, does it qualify for two grants or for one? We have taken over two houses and made one. I hope that the Minister will say that that example would involve two houses and that there should be two grants.
I wish to deal with the main issue, which my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North, dealt with so ably and fully. Let us face the gravity of the situation. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) took office in 1945, local government in some Lancashire towns, in some of the over-populated industrial areas, was on the verge of complete breakdown. There is no question about that. So far as Oldham is concerned, the Exchequer equalisation grant means about 5s. in the £ on the rates. Nothing has caused such anxiety in local government circles in Oldham as the announcement some months ago that the right hon. Gentleman was looking at this figure and that some statement might be made.

Mr. Blenkinsop: My hon. Friend will remember that other cities, such as Newcastle, do not get anything out of the Exchequer equalisation grant.

Mr. Hale: Newcastle have recently not behaved very well when they came to Lancashire. Some time ago they went to Wigan and found fault with the sanitary arrangements there. However, I am most anxious that my hon. Friend's constituency should have the benefit of any reforms that take place.
That really was the situation. I do not say that Oldham is the worst place in England so far as that situation is concerned. In many respects, it is one of the best. But so far as the housing situation is concerned, Oldham has this major problem. Let us look at its magnitude in relation to Oldham. There are about 40,000 houses there of which 10,000 are in such a state that the medical officer says that they should be demolished at once if they could be; but there is no sense in scheduling them for demolition when we cannot, for financial reasons, hope to do without houses which do not really rise to the

standard of being fit for human habitation. We are building in Oldham about 400 new houses a year, so that, if we conducted a slum clearance scheme under the old laws and cleared all the houses that should be cleared, it would take us 25 years to build enough houses to accommodate the people whom we were going to clear out of the slums. That is the magnitude of the problem.
There is no hope of tackling the slum clearance problem on the lines one vaguely talked about in the years before the war, no hope of pulling down the houses which are unfit for human habitation, no hope of the sort of scheme that could make Oldham a happily and well-housed town. What did we do? We prepared such a limited slum clearance scheme as was within the bounds of practical politics today, in an era of inflation, of rising costs in local government circles. On that we have based the Oldham town planning scheme.
Oldham is badly in need of town planning. Few towns in England need it much more. Oldham has a worthwhile town planning scheme in which the whole town centre and orientation of the town is contemplated—its redevelopment and replanning. The right hon. Gentleman says that we are to scrap all that. If we are to say, "No, we are not going to demolish these houses now, we are going to keep them going by patching," the whole of one's town planning project needs complete revision, and town planning on modern lines becomes a matter of real difficulty.
I am not saying this in any sense of criticism. In the main, I have a good deal of sympathy with the proposals which the Minister puts forward for preserving the houses that have to be preserved. It is perfectly clear that these houses will have to be inhabited for years, in the exigencies of the present situation, whether or not they should be, and, that being so, it is a good thing that they should be inhabited in better condition than they would have been. That is the case for the particular measures in respect of which we are discussing a subsidy. It seems to me that if is a good enough case for the time being, looking at the magnitude of the problem.
I wish to look at Oldham's position. Many of my hon. Friends have already


said—I will touch on it in passing—that the rate situation is a very grave one indeed. There have been considerable increases in wages in local authorities, a considerable rise in the cost of living and additional costs in respect of community services. There has been a deliberate, and I think quite monstrous, rise in interest rates on housing projects which will cause very considerable expenditure in the months to come and will mean a very considerable added burden on the rates.
There has been, under the aegis of the right hon. Gentleman, a considerable rise in building costs—an enormous rise, a fantastic and incredible rise in building costs. [An Hon. Member: "No."] Indeed yes, yes, yes. The evidence is there. [HON MEMBERS: "Where?"] In the figures which the Government publish and which we discuss in the House from time to time. The right hon. Gentleman made an announcement. In answer to questions, he has pointed to the very considerable rise in building costs. Of course, in relation to council houses he has masked it to some extent by reducing accommodation and amenities, cutting out cupboards and shelves here and there, cutting out extra lavatories, and so on.

The Chairman: I think that the hon. Member is getting a little wide of the Resolution.

Mr. Hale: I am glad that you did not say, Sir Charles, that I personally was getting a little wide. I am very conscious of that, and am taking stern personal measures to put it right.
That is the situation to which I should be out of order in referring. It exists, and in the light of that existing situation, I continue with my remarks. We are to get this £3 grant on the houses which will be scheduled for demolition but which will be preserved. Very properly, the Minister said, "You must go on with your slum clearance. You must not try to preserve houses which really are ripe for immediate demolition. Carry on with that also."

Mr. Jack Jones: Keep the pick of them.

Mr. Hale: The pick of these 10,000 is no doubt better than those which are being demolished today.
How is it to be done? We have never been told. Nobody says where the labour or the organisation is coming from to enable the town to build 400 new houses and provide building labour for repairs for several thousand more houses so that landlords can charge more rent, to enable the spending of £200 on some houses and to patch up the several thousand houses which we may decide to retain and at the same time meet the cost of demolishing the other houses. Who is to pay for it, and where is the money to come from?
One thing which I regard with some disquiet, particularly in an inflationary era, is the prognostications of civil servants about the cost of doing these things. I thought that my hon. Friendserred on the side of moderation in their estimates of the probable cost. Far be it from me to say anything derogatory to the building industry, in which I have some modest interest—a very unsuccessful one. I have had builders and plumbers in the house. I have to spend more time with my bank manager at the end of these operations than I do with the plumber. Costs really are rising to an extravagant extent.
Of course, we appreciate the efforts of the Birmingham authority in reconditioning houses. We appreciate the efforts of various private enterprise authorities in trying to show what can be done with houses with the application of intelligence and organisation. But, of course, these houses are picked houses; they do not choose unsuitable houses. It is very nice to be told that if a house has a suitable outhouse, this may be turned into a bathroom, and so add to the amenities of the house. But they do not say anything about houses where there is no suitable outhouse. The cost of doing such a thing in those houses would be fantastic and impossible. So I am saying in all seriousness that the situation is one of great gravity.
What can a corporation do when it is faced with this problem today? The cost of modern houses is getting intensely prohibitive. I do not understand economics and I do not know why it is inflationary to give an electrician 5s. a week extra but is not inflationary to put up rents by 5s.—[Interruption.] I thought I was saying something which was generally accepted but apparently the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) holds a different opinion.

Mr. Powell: I was only saying that that did not seem to be in the Financial Resolution.

Mr. Hale: I hope the hon. Member will have another look at the Financial Resolution, because if it is not, it is very serious and the Resolution obviously does not cover the operations of the Bill. That may be another reason for voting against it, because of its inadequacy.
However, there is the problem. We in Oldham are trying to build 400 more houses a year with all the new services in an area that was outside the borough a year or two ago. But many people are not getting the advantage of them at the moment. Many essential services are not being fully implemented in relation to the new estates. We have a programme on which we have embarked for the demolition of houses. Now, under the terms of this Resolution we have superimposed upon it proposals for the preservation, the taking over and the alteration of a very large number of houses which it is suggested can be preserved by this means.
If the figures given by my hon. Friend the Member for Itchen (Mr. Morley) are correct—and, as I have said, if they err at all it is on the side of moderation—the burden to local authorities will be wholly intolerable. They will be placed in a position in which they have to apply their own priorities as between slum clearance, new building, reconditioning and indeed, to some extent, as between the compulsory work they can still direct a private owner to do in respect of houses which have not been taken over. It is a fantastic situation and it seems to be wholly inadequate. I ask the right hon. Gentleman—not in any party sense at all—to consider these matters.
This is a Bill which has many merits and some grave demerits. Some parts I think abominable, and some represent, on the whole, about the best that can now be done. At least there are some reasonably constructive suggestions about clearing up the dreadful mess in which the Tories left us to carry on following the years of neglect before the war, years when they left us in a condition where Oldham was saved only by its depopulation. It was only because of the depopulation of Oldham that we have been able to face the problem at all. We

were depopulated by the misery of unemployment.
There are now 10,000 houses which have to be allocated as between actual slums and reconditioned premises. It is all very well to say that it does not cost much to pull down a house, but every time we pull one down we have to build one in its place. That is the magnitude of the problem—10,000 houses out of a total of 40,000, one in four of every dwelling house in the town.
No community can bear such a burden without outside assistance. No town can carry it. In the last few months we have had proposals for special areas and special localities. We have had to make such proposals. I suggest that when my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) introduced his exchange equalisation procedure in 1945, he completely saved local government in those towns. But for that, we could not have gone on, and it is something of a tragedy that the large advances we had in Oldham were already absorbed by our obligations. But for that, the rates in Oldham would have gone up by another 5s. in the £, and now we are back again to the same position.
Anyone with a pencil and paper who starts to put down all the additional burdens thrust on a town, the additional responsibilities and weight of organisation, and the staffing necessary to deal with it, must see that this is now a severe and exacting moment in the history of local government in our over-populated industrial towns. It is a matter for earnest thought and most careful discussion, and we should consider taking exceptional measures in addition to increasing the basic sums provided by the Money Resolution.

6.56 p.m.

Mr. H. Macmillan: I do not think that in recent years it has been customary for a Minister to wind up a debate on a Financial Resolution in every case, but I think the Committee will not feel I am taking up too much time if I try shortly to reply to some of the important points which have been raised on what is a very important Resolution. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee will not think me discourteous if I do not take so wide a view of all that has been said as might otherwise


have been possible, because we have an arrangement by which another Resolution must be taken, and one would like to see that done at an hour convenient to hon. Members representing Scottish constituents.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) asked me a number of questions, some of which he answered himself. I always like the speeches of the hon. Member, because they cover a very wide field. He is always fair, and certainly he was today. He was fair and moderate, and he suggested all kinds of interesting thoughts and purposes. Were I to follow him into the whole picture of what we are trying to do in the matter of slum clearance in general, and not confine myself to points arising out of this Resolution, I should be both out of order and perhaps discourteous to other hon. Members in that I should have less time to devote to the questions which they raised. I shall therefore confine myself to answering specifically a question, and the answer will be satisfactory to the hon. Member.
If two back-to-back houses were dealt with under this scheme and if they were made into one "patched" house, they would draw two subsidies. It would be left for the local authority to decide what and how large a family they should put into that accommodation. Such houses can, of course, be changed under quite a different scheme, but I am dealing now with this particular scheme.

Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas: Would the Minister explain his use of the term "back-to-back"? Would that apply only to back-to-back houses which are actually back-to-back, or would it also apply to houses which are adjacent, next door to each other?

Mr. Macmillan: I would not like to be drawn into the realms of speculation, but I should say that "side-by-side" appears to have a different connotation from "back-to-back." But I will look into it. I can assure the hon. Member that this would be a unit grant and therefore would be payable in regard to the point he raised.
There is one thing about which I should like to thank the Committee as a whole. There has been a change of attitude. At the end of the Second Reading debate on the Bill the deputy Leader

of the Opposition made a very bitter and wounding attack upon me which I felt all the more because I regard him as a considerable authority on these matters. He said that any conception of holding up slum clearance was abhorrent to him. He made a violent attack upon me for turning the local authorities into slum landlords. That attack has been repeated up and down the country as if I were a criminal asking them to do something wholly wrong.
What has happened in today's debate? There have been the most sympathetic speeches from almost every hon. Member saying that in the conditions we have to face it is pure hypocrisy to talk about slum landlords. Everybody knows that, although there are some cities which have no right to operate under this system and who ought to be able to clear their slums in a five-year period, there are others where it is a question either of doing something or of doing nothing at all. It is hypocrisy to say that deferred demolition and the measures proposed are wrong in principle.
Therefore, the most violent attack made upon the whole basis of these proposals only a few weeks ago has sunk, it has gone. The hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) was most sympathetic. So far from attacking this proposal, he welcomed it. He said that it was overdue and he reproached me for the many years when nothing was done. But I have not been responsible for so long a time. I have a right, having been so violently attacked, to make my reply, and I say that the whole tempo has changed. In deed, now it is said that deferred demolition in the right circumstances, where there is no other way out—

Mr. Bevan: On a point of order.

Mr. Macmillan: —can be as valuable—

Mr. Bevan: On a point of order. We can understand the right hon. Gentleman's indignation, but I have been waiting for him to come to the Financial Resolution. So far we have not had a word about it.

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman might come nearer to the subject.

Mr. Macmillan: I will, of course, follow that Ruling. I am glad to be put right by so careful a follower of the rules of order as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan). Having said that, and there being a general agreement that what this Resolution wants to do is a good thing, the only question which arises is whether the machine to do it is adequate for the purpose. The Resolution might have been attacked upon the ground which I was giving, but it was not. It has been attacked, not on the ground that it is not right to have deferred demolition, but on the ground that the financial proposal is not adequate to achieve what we want.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Surely the whole point of our argument has been that it is so wrong to make the local authority the main slum landlord without giving it authority to take over all the other property?

Mr. Macmillan: That was not the point made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) when he spoke on Second Reading. I have the speech here. I have not forgotten it. That point was completely thrown over by the right hon. Gentleman who is the other leader of the party. We must try to distinguish between the major and the minor prophets.
I come to purely financial questions. It is agreed now that this is a good thing to do. The hon. Member for Oldham, West admits that it is necessary. Is this the right method and is this the right sum? I do not think that there is much disagreement about the method. It was proposed by the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) that we ought to have a percentage grant on each transaction, but if we were to deal with large numbers of houses and if we had to take £100 here, £50 there, £180 or £200, and get them all approved for a percentage grant, that would be unworkable.

Mr. MacColl: That was not what I meant. I suggested a percentage grant based on the expenditure of each authority. I was pleading that special problems should be considered separately.

Mr. Macmillan: If I were to make a different decision with a different rate of grant for every authority, I do not think

that that would be a very satisfactory arrangement.

Mr. MacColl: No—the same rate.

Mr. Macmillan: I think that we must have an average rate for the houses. There must be an average. The question is whether this calculation is right or wrong. There have been many arguments advanced, and they have been very different ones. The hon. Member for Itchen (Mr. Morley) accepted the average figure of £180, which was the figure he was given by his local authority. That was contradicted by the hon. Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson) who, I think, took a figure of £200. Other figures based upon those given by other hon. Gentlemen would have been far higher than that, and they do not seem to me to be in the spirit of this patching operation. They were practically rebuilding the houses—£500, £600 or £700 would have been required upon the basis of the figures given claiming grant.
It is really within the margin of £180 or £200 that we stand. On the same calculation as that of the hon. Member for Itchen, my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), I thought conclusively, proved that the figure was right, if not generous, at £3. There have been variations in the argument, but they were taking broadly the same figure of £180 as an average.
Then there was an argument by the hon. Member for Small Heath (Mr. Wheeldon) who pointed out that he had been informed by the town clerk that if we were wrong by 1s. that would amount in a year to £2 12s. I made a rapid calculation and I agree that 52 times 1s. comes to £2 12s.

Mr. Wheeldon: The statement was made in an official paper to the A.M.C. conference by the city treasurer of Manchester.

Mr. Macmillan: And it is true, but it is not so overwhelmingly true as to amount to a revelation. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale, at the end of his speech, very generously said to me—because we have had our battles—that in point of fact we are operating in unknown territory and there is very little to go by. We have to try to get the machine going and see how it goes. I have, more than anybody else,


an interest that it should go, because I want it to go. So far as I have a reputation, I am pledging my reputation that it should go. The right hon. Gentleman asked how it was to be done. He asked that question every day two years ago about the new houses. He does not ask it now. We do not even have a Supply Day for a debate about housing. We have not had a debate for two years.
I do not want the figure to be so high that local authorities perhaps on the border-line, which have got something that could be done in five or six years, might say "We will patch them up; we will not bother to pull them down." I want them to aid the slum clearance drive, and to operate this patching scheme only when particular circumstances make it clear that it would be wholly unrealistic to say that they could pull down all the slum property in a few years. But I do not want that to be an excuse for patching in a place where the whole slum problem could be dealt with energetically in a five-year period.
The whole of my interest is that this should succeed, and I do not want to put the figure up too high so that it will have the effect that I do not want it to have. Perhaps my calculations are wrong. Perhaps it is £180, £190 or £150. What is the obvious thing to do? It is to get it started, to get the thing under way, to make a beginning and then to have a review in two or three years' time. The Bill will not be through for some months, and it will take time. A review before two years have passed would not be of much use. I, or my successor, will make it as soon as it will be of use, and then perhaps we shall see that we have made a wrong calculation.

I assure the Committee that it is in this spirit that I ask hon. Members to approve this Motion. It may not be quite enough, but I ask them to grant the sum of money so that at least we can make a start on the novel experiment in what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale very generously said to me was new and unexplored territory.

Mr. E. Fletcher: Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down, will he deal with the argument of a number of my hon. Friends that the figure should be a minimum and that he should reserve power to increase it where special circumstances justify that action?

Mr. Macmillan: I was never quite sure from the arguments whether the proposal was constitutionally so bad that I ought not to have power to increase the figure or whether it was so sensible that I ought to have power to increase the figure. However, I do not think I should like to have the power, and it is certainly not granted in the Money Resolution. We can deal with this matter on the Bill, but it is not our intention that the Minister should make all kinds of special donations here and there. The correct thing to do is to run on this basis for a certain period and then have a general review to see whether any alteration is required. That is not an unreasonable proposal, and I believe local authorities will be prepared to start the adventure on that basis, all the more because, as the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, some of them have started without any assistance at all.

Question put.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 291; Noes, 247.

Division No. 20.]
AYES
[7.13 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Bullard, D. G.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Burden, F. F. A.


Amory, Rt. Hon. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Bennett, William (Woodside)
Butcher, Sir Herbert


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Campbell, Sir David


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Birch, Nigel
Carr, Robert


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Bishop, F. P.
Gary, Sir Robert


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Black, C. W.
Channon, H.


Baker, P. A. D.
Boothby, Sir R. J. G.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Bossom, Sir A. C.
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)


Baldwin, A. E.
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)


Banks, Col. C.
Boyle, Sir Edward
Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.


Barber, Anthony
Braine, B. R.
Cole, Norman


Barlow, Sir John
Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)
Colegate, W. A.


Baxter, A. B.
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Conant, Maj. R. J. E.


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Brooman-White, R. C.
Cooper-Key, E. M.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Browne, Jack (Govan)
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)




Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Hutchinson, James (Scotstoun)
Powell, J. Enoch


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Crouch, R. F.
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Profumo, J. D.


Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Jennings, R.
Raikes, Sir Victor


Cuthbert, W. N.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Rayner, Brig. R.


Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Redmayne, M.


Davidson, Viscountess
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L W.
Rees-Davies, W. R.


De la Bère, Sir Rupert
Kaberry, D.
Remnant, Hon. P.


Deedes, W. F.
Kerr, H. W.
Renton, D. L. M.


Digby, S. Wingfield
Lambert, Hon. G.
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Lambton, Viscount
Robertson, Sir David


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Robson-Brown, W.


Donner, Sir P. W.
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Doughty, C. J. A.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Russell, R. S.


Drayson, G. B.
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sirf T. (Richmond)
Lindsay, Martin
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Sholefield, Lt.-Col. W.


Duthie, W. S.
Llewellyn, D. T.
Scott, R. Donald


Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir D M.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Shepherd, William


Erroll, F. J.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Fell, A.
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)


Finlay, Graeme
Longden, Gilbert
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)


Fisher, Nigel
Low, A. R. W.
Snadden, W. McN.


Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Soames, Capt. C.


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Spearman, A. C M.


Ford, Mrs. Patricia
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Speir, R. M.


Fort, R.
McAdden, S. J.
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Foster, John
McCallum, Major D.
Spens, Rt. Hon. Sir P. (Kensington, S.)


Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Stevens, G. P.


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)
McKibbin, A. J.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M


Gammans, L. D.
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Storey, S.


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Maclean, Fitzroy
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Stuart,Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Glover, D.
Macleod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Studholme, H. G.


Godber, J. B.
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Summers, G. S.


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Sutcliffe, Sir Harold


Gough, C. F. H.
Maitland, Comdr, J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)


Gwer, H. R.
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Graham, Sir Fergus
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.
Teeling, W.


Gridley, Sir Arnold
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Marples, A. E.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Maude, Angus
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Harden, J. R. E.
Maudling, R.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Hare, Hon. J. H.
Medlicott, Brig. F.
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N )
Mellor, Sir John
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Molson, A. H. E.
Touche, Sir Gordon


Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Turner, H. F. L.


Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Moore, Sir Thomas
Turton, R. H.


Harvie-Walt, Sir George
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Hay, John
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Vane, W. M. F.


Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Hold, Sir Lionel
Neave, Airey
Vosper, D. F.


Heath, Edward
Nicholls, Harmer
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Walker-Smith,D. C.


Higgs, J. M. C.
Nield, Basil (Chester)
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Nugent, G. R. H.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Nutting, Anthony
Watkinson, H. A.


Hirst, Geoffrey
Oakshott, H. D.
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Holland-Martin, C. J.
Odey, G. W.
Wellwood, W.


Holt, A. F.
O'Neill, Hon. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Hope, Lord John
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Hopkinson, Right Hon. Henry
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Horobin, I. M.
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare)
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Osborne, C.
Wills, G.


Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Page, R. G.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Wood, Hon. R.


Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Perkins, W. R. D.
York, C.


Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.



Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.
Peyton, J. W. W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES: 


Hurd, A. R.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Mr. Buchan-Hepburn and Sir Cedric Drewe.


Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.




Pitt, Miss E. M.








NOES


Adams, Richard
Hale, Leslie
Pargiter, G A.


Albu, A. H.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Parker, J.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
Parkin, B. T.


Allen, Sohelefield (Crewe)
Hamilton, W. W.
Paton, J.


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Hannan, W.
Pearson, A.


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Hardy, E. A.
Peart, T. F.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Hargreaves, A.
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Awbery, S. S.
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Popplewell, E.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Hastings, S.
Porter, G.


Baird, J.
Hayman, F. H.
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Healey, Denis (Leeds S.E.)
Price, Phillips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Bartley, P.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Proctor, W. T.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Herbison, Miss M.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.


Bence, C. R.
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Rankin, John


Benn, Hon. Wedgwood
Hobson, C. R.
Reeves, J.


Benson, G.
Holman, P.
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)


Beswick, F.
Houghton, Douglas
Reid, William (Camlachie)


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Hoy, J. H.
Rhodes, H.


Bing, G. H. C.
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Richards, R.


Blackburn, F.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Blenkinsop, A.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Blyton, W. R.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Boardman, H.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Bowden, H. W.
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Ross, William


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Brockway, A. F.
Janner, B.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Short, E. W.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Jeger, George (Goole)
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Burke, W. A.
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Burton, Miss F. E.
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, 5.)
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Skeffington, A. M.


Callaghan, L. J.
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)


Carmichael, J.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Jones. T. W. (Merioneth)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Champion, A. J.
Keenan, W.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Snow, J. W.


Clunie, J.
King, Dr. H. M.
Sorensen, R. W


Coldrick, W.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Collick, P. H.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Steele, T.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Cove, W. G.
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Lewis, Arthur
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Crosland, C. A. R.
Lindgren, G. S.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Grossman, R. H. S.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Stross, Dr. Barnett


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Logan, D. G.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Daines, P.
MacColl, J. E.
Swingler, S. T.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
McGhee, H. G.
Syvester, G. O.


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
McGovern, J.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
McInnes, J.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
McLeavy, F.
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


de Freitas, Geoffrey
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Deer, G.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Delargy, H. J.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Thornton, E.


Dodds, N. N.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Tomney, F.


Donnelly, D. L.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Turner-Samuels, M.


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Manuel, A. C.
Viant, S. P.


Edelman, M.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Warbey, W. N.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
Mason, Roy
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)


Edwards, Rt. Hon, Ness (Caerphilly)
Mayhew, C. P.
Weitzman, D.


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Mellish, R. J.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Messer, Sir F.
Wells, William (Walsall)


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Mitchison, G. R.
West, D. G.


Fernyhough, E.
Monslow, W.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Fienburgh, W.
Moody, A. S.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Finch, H. J.
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Morley, R.
Whitely, Rt. Hon. W.


Follick, M.
Mort, D. L.
Wigg, George


Foot, M. M.
Moyle, A.
Wilkins, W. A.


Forman, J. C.
Mulley, F. W.
Willey, F. T.


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Murray, J. D.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Freeman, John (Watford)
Nally, W.
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Gibson, C. W.
O'Brien, T.
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Glanville, James
Oliver, G. H.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Gooch, E. G.
Orbach, M.
Wyatt, W. L.


Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Oswald, T.
Yates, V. F.


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Padley, W. E.



Grey, C. F.
Paget, R. T.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES: 


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Mr. Holmes and Mr. Wallace.


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Palmer, A. M. F.



Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Pannell, Charles

Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.

HOUSING (REPAIRS AND RENTS) (SCOTLAND) [MONEY]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).—[Queen's recommendation signified.]

[Sir RHYS HOPKIN MORRIS in the Chair.]

7.24 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. James Stuart): I beg to move,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make further provision as respects Scotland for the clearance and redevelopment of areas of unfit housing accommodation, and for securing or promoting the reconditioning and maintenance of houses, and otherwise to amend the enactments relating to housing and rent control, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—
(a) contributions in respect of houses purchased by local authorities under section seventeen of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1950, or in respect of houses purchased or held by local authorities for demolition but retained for use for housing purposes, consisting of—
(i) a contribution equal to one-half of the annual loan charges referable to the cost of purchase of each such house for each financial year in which any part of the house is used for housing purposes; and
(ii) a contribution equal to seven pounds five shillings, or such other sum as the Secretary of State may determine, for each such house payable annually for a period of fifteen years;
(b) any increase attributable to the said Act of the present Session in the sums payable out of such moneys under subsection (3) of section one of the Rent of Furnished Houses Control (Scotland) Act, 1943, section one hundred and sixteen or section one hundred and seventy of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1950, or Part II of the Local Government Act, 1948.
The main purpose of this Resolution is to seek authority for the payment of moneys to local authorities towards the cost of acquiring and doing works on unfit houses under the Housing (Repairs and Rents) (Scotland) Bill pending demolition of these houses. The Second Reading debate on the Bill provided an opportunity for me to explain the scope of the powers which it is proposed to give to local authorities for this purpose. In particular, I stressed then the point that the new proposals were in no sense a substitute for the demolition of bad

houses, and that the Government were anxious that local authorities should resume slum clearance to the fullest possible extent in their areas at the earliest possible moment.
We must recognise that in many districts, despite the very remarkable progress which has been made in the building of new houses, the housing shortage is still so acute that houses which should be demolished will have to be occupied for some time ahead. The time will, of course, vary from district to district, but whether it be long or short, it is right in the meantime to do whatever can be done to improve and make the lot of the tenants of these houses more bearable, and that is the justification for this Resolution.
The Resolution provides that financial assistance will be given to local authorities under two headings. These are stated quite clearly in the Financial Resolution on the Paper and also in the White Paper which I presented, Cmd. 9032. In the first place, it is proposed that the Exchequer should meet one half of the annual loan charges relating to the cost of purchase of each house for each financial year in which any part of the house is used for housing purposes. Secondly, there is to be a contribution of £7 5s. for each house annually for a period of 15 years towards the cost of carrying out works upon it and the local authority's other charges. Under Clause 5 of the Bill local authorities are to make in respect of each house a contribution from the rates equal to the Exchequer's contribution. That is to say, the Exchequer and the rate contributions are to be on a fifty-fifty basis.
I have consulted the three associations of local authorities in Scotland about these proposals, and they have expressed their views. I met them, in the first place, before the Second Reading of the Bill; then later meetings took place with officials, and to give time for further consideration I did not move the Money Resolution as it was previously tabled. The last meeting with the associations took place on 4th January, when my right hon. and gallant Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State attended.

Mr. James McInnes: What were the views of the associations at the last meeting?

Mr. Stuart: I am coining to the differences which developed. Following this last meeting with the associations, I presented the short White Paper to which I have just referred, containing the terms of the Resolution which we are now considering.
This new Resolution substitutes £7 5s. for £6 10s., which was in the Resolution previously tabled, as the Exchequer contribution payable annually to local authorities for 15 years for work done on unfit houses. I may say that the negotiations with the local authorities began on a basis of £5 5s. As hon. Members are aware, the Resolution originally tabled contained the figure of £6 10s., and the present Money Resolution contains the figure of £7 5s., which, at the end of our negotiations, is an increase of as much as £2—a considerable percentage increase. I have done my best to be generous. The calculation is based upon an average deficit per house of £14 10s., which is the best estimate we could make in the absence of experience on this subject. I do not think that the associations seriously challenged the figure of £14 10s.
I cannot claim, however, that they accepted the financial provisions outlined in the Financial Resolution and in the Bill. The fundamental difference between us is as to the ratio in which the average annual deficiency should be borne by the Exchequer and by the rates. The associations proposed that the ratio should be three to one and not one to one, or fifty-fifty, as proposed in the Resolution, on the ground that three to one is the ratio prevailing in respect of new houses. Naturally, I sympathised with their views, but I regretted that I was unable to accept them. I cannot admit that because the three-to-one ratio operates in respect of new housing it must necessarily operate in this different sphere.
It may be of interest to many hon. Members to recall that the three-to-one ratio in respect of new housing has not operated throughout and that during the last 30 years the ratio has been varied on several occasions. Before the war it was normally below three to one. In any case, there is no true comparison between the burden imposed on local authorities for new houses and that likely to result under the new proposals which are now being considered. The burden in regard to new

building is admittedly heavy, but it can be measured in advance and it is assumed for a period of 60 years.
Against that, the new scheme is temporary, for a 15-year period only on the average, and the expenditure will be small compared with the cost of new building and will vary from house to house. Account will have to be taken of the condition, age and type of each house and of the amount of work which should be done upon it and how long it should be retained for housing purposes.
This means that, in practice, authorities will have to hold the balance between doing enough to make conditions more tolerable for tenants and avoiding spending more than is necessary, taking into consideration the temporary life of the structure. The probability is that this will be best done if there is a balance of responsibility between taxpayer and ratepayer. For this reason it is not unreasonable that the contributions should be on a fifty-fifty basis.
I was glad to hear the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) admit this afternoon, in disussing the English Financial Resolution—I do not quote his exact words, although I made a note while he was speaking—that local authorities should have a due measure of financial responsibility. That supports my argument.

Mr. Hector McNeil: Due.

Mr. Stuart: Of course, it is a matter of opinion how one interprets the word "due," but at any rate he did admit that I am suggesting that in this instance the 50–50 basis is a reasonable measure of assistance, and that, in practice, it will be found to be not unreasonable. It is perfectly natural that the local authority associations should try to persuade the Government to retain the three to one ratio.
The right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale also admitted this afternoon that he saw the difficulty of estimating costs in a new field such as the one upon which we are now embarking. Those are not his exact words, but I agree with him that it will take time to test the various estimates made in arriving at the subsidy figures, and only experience will provide a reasonable assessment of the average cost of repairs and of the cost of maintenance and management. In fact, I think it is


generally admitted that this is an experiment.
When we have adequate information based on experience, then the scheme will be reviewed. The Bill makes special provision for the subsidies, on review, to be altered either upwards or downwards without new legislation, but subject to an affirmative Resolution of this House, which means, in practice, that Parliament retains control over financial expenditure.
This is a matter to which reference was made in some detail this afternoon, and. therefore, I thought it wise to stress the fact—because being of very great importance I think it is worthy of repetition—that we have powers under subsections (2) and (4) of Clause 4 to vary the subsidy either upwards or downwards.
I wish to impress upon the Committee that in any such future adjustments and in deciding upon the figures, it is of very great importance to keep before us the fact that slum clearance is our main objective and that this is a temporary expedient to tide us over until such time as slum clearance can be carried through.

Mr. McInnes: Would the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to clarify precisely what subsection of Clause 4 gives him the right to increase the contribution?

Mr. Stuart: Clause 4 (2) says, in italics:
as if for the sum therein specified there were substituted such higher or lower sum as may be specified in the order.
I was saying that in embarking upon this work we should keep before us the fact that slum clearance is our main objective, because, as my right hon. Friend said this afternoon, we must not regard patching as a substitute for slum clearance.
This Money Resolution also contains certain minor amendments. It makes subsidies available not only for the repair of houses which local authorities have purchased under the Housing Acts and under the Bill, but also in respect of a comparatively small number of houses already owned by local authorities either as a result of purchase under the planning Acts oracquired by gift.
If any houses in these categories are brought within the clearance provisions of the Housing Acts they will attract the

new subsidies in the same way as houses purchased by local authorities specifically for temporary repair or patching pending demolition. In all such cases, of course, it is a temporary repair or patching and it is done pending demolition of the houses later.
I hope that these Amendments will be of benefit to the local authorities because I fully realise that they have not got all that they would like or asked for. I am sorry about this because I, personally, regret such differences between us. I am deeply appreciative of the great work that they have accomplished in the field of new housing, and I would not like there to be any friction or difficulty affecting the future friendly co-operation between the Scottish Office and the local authority associations. However, it is not an unusual experience to be disappointed in such negotiations. As my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government pointed out this afternoon, people hardly if ever do come out of financial negotiations having got all that they wanted, and I hope that despite the disappointment of the local authority associations in this case their co-operation will continue.
I believe that the Government have made a fair decision. As I say, there will be reviews in the light of experience, and I should like to take this opportunity of asking local authorities to give the scheme a fair trial and to co-operate fully in the effort to deal with this pressing problem of dilapidation, in the interests of those who are at present forced to endure bad housing conditions until the time arrives when they can be rehoused.

7.42 p.m.

Mr. A. Woodburn: When the Secretary of State rose we rather hoped that he would elucidate a great many of the points which were left unexplained by his right hon. Friend this afternoon. The Minister of Housing and Local Government, I agree, far excelled the right hon. Gentleman in eloquent rhetoric and even evangelical enthusiasm about the Financial Resolution, but, at the end of it all we were not very clear how it was going to work. I hoped that when the Secretary of State came along, with his great practical sense of getting down to brass tacks, he would immediately explain how the local authorities would


fare under this Resolution. It may be my fault, but I do not yet understand how it will all work and I hope to put one or two questions which the Minister may be able to clear up later.
I ought to say right away that we still feel that this is a wrong application of public money; that if public money is to be spent it ought to be spent for the best purpose possible. When we talk about spending money we are really allocating labour and materials for certain purposes in the community and, given a limited amount of labour and materials—or money, as it may be in the Resolution—it ought to be applied to the best purpose.
We hoped that we should be able to put down an Amendment to this Resolution suggesting that the amount should be put on a three-to-one ratio and not fifty-fifty. The local authorities feel that that is the right basis and would put the whole of their accounts on a more harmonious basis than would this new arrangement of fifty-fifty. The Secretary of State seems to think that this was a special case where the proportion of the local authority ought to be more and I could not, myself, follow his reasoning.
When a local authority contributes towards the cost of a new house, that new house is an asset when it is completed. The local authority is able to recover rent and rates for about 60 or 70 years. But any money which the local authority spends on these old houses is money down the drain. There can be no hope of recovering it in future. It is simply money spent to keep something ticking until it can be destroyed. In a case of that kind, I should have thought that, far from less money being devoted to local authorities, they have a very good claim to an even more generous consideration. There is no comparison between the burden borne by a local authority in the case of a new house and that borne by it in the case of one of these houses. New houses are assets, whereas these are liabilities, whether or not they are repaired.
The Minister of Housing and Local Government, who made the main case for the Resolution—and the Secretary of State, rightly, did not repeat all the arguments he used—seemed to say that he

did not want to make this task too attractive. In other words, the Government do not want to make local authorities concentrate on maintaining these slums. That seemed to imply that he felt that, somehow or other, this was a waste of money. On the other hand, we must all recognise that if these houses are to exist and people are to be compelled to live in them—through nobody's fault—the conditions in which they live must be made more tolerable than they are in many cases. There is no reason why these people should suffer if something can be done to help them.
In spite of that, we should not want this money to be used to perpetuate the slums by offering any inducement for them to be continued. When the local authorities face this problem they are bound to say, "We do not know the true extent of the problem. We do not know with what costs we shall be faced if we tackle it." They may be able to estimate the cost of a new house, but when they start tinkering with an old house it may be that the first thing they do will involve them in far greater expense than if they had left the house alone. They may get involved in expenditure in respect of drains or roofs which makes the initial expenditure a mere bagatelle.
So the problem starts with a great deal of uncertainty for the right hon. Gentleman and, more especially, for local authorities. The difficulty is that, when they are dealing with this problem, the local authorities will say, "We are going to take the gamble of touching up this rickety old building and trying to make it habitable. If we succeed we shall get a grant from the Secretary of State. If we do not succeed and we cannot make the house habitable, or it falls down while we are repairing it, the Secretary of State will say, 'You have not made the house habitable, so you do not get anything for the site value or the work which you have done.' "That is a gamble for local authorities to take, if we assume the worst case.
A great deal has been said about the question of raising this sum to the present figure of £7 5s., but the sum is absolutely meaningless. No local authority knows that it is to get £7 5s. That depends on whether the Secretary of State varies it up or down. It would have been just as easy to say that grants will be made.


according to the Secretary of State's discretion, to help local authorities to repair these houses. The figure means nothing at all. No local authority can calculate the cost of this work and be sure that it is going to get £7 5s. per house. How can any local authority feel any confidence in tackling this job if there is nothing it can count upon in the way of assistance from the right hon. Gentleman?
Where, in this Financial Resolution, is there any assurance to the local authority that it will get anything at all? It all depends on the right hon. Gentleman's discretion and, while we may feel that it is always a very generous discretion, the local authorities may not feel the same about it. Exactly what does it amount to in cash? The local authorities like to see a figure in their books and not something in the right hon. Gentleman's pleasant countenance. They must have something to count upon before embarking upon this work. When the Minister replies I hope that he will tell us where, in this Financial Resolution, there is any provision which allows a local authority to rely upon getting one penny when it starts this job.
The sum of £7 5s. per house on the average means a capital sum, I understand, of approximately £171. The local authority has to give another 100 per cent, on that, that is, £340. That is the average to be spent on each house. Is that not true?

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Commander T. D. Galbraith): The right hon. Gentleman said £340 was to be spent?

Mr. Woodburn: No. If the Government are giving £171 for each house, if the capital sum on the average is £171 for patching up an old house, the local authority has to provide £171. That means £342.

Commander Galbraith: No. The right hon. Gentleman has got the picture wrong. What we are estimating is that the average cost of repair will be £170. On that we estimate there will be a deficit of £14 10s., which, divided equally between the local authority and the Government, gives two shares of £7 5s.

Mr. Woodburn: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman is talking about the

annual loss averaged into the capital sum, which is the money which is orginally spent, and which is about £171. if that is to be divided in two it means the local authority is to get only £85. Is that the argument?

Commander Galbraith: The right hon. Gentleman could put the argument in that way. The total sum we estimate to be spent on the average is £170, and that, with loan charges, etc., taken into the calculation, works out at £14 10s. The estimated expenditure is £170.

Mr. Woodburn: Would the right hon. and gallant Gentleman tell me whether £14 10s. is the annual loss or £7 5s.? It does not mean £171. It means only £85. If that is the sum which is represented by £7 5s. it is contrary to the information given me when the Bill was started. However, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has probably verified these figures. It means that £171 is to be spent on the average over a large number of houses. Thus we may have one house on which £10 is spent and another on which £300 is spent, but the local authority, if this were the fixed sum, would get on the average for each house £7 5s. towards its annual outlay. Am I right in that assumption?
Here we have a very large amount of money being expended on old houses. That money also means labour and valuable material, which, as I say, is going down the drain in a few years. So, for every six or seven old houses patched up, we could build a new house, with the same labour and material, and yet the Government actually think that this is the best way of devoting this money, putting it into patching up houses that will not last, instead of speeding up yet further house building. The labour and material must come from somewhere that are to go into patching up these houses.
The Minister of Housing and Local Government today said—indeed, the Bill says—that if the local authorities spend too little the Secretary of State may withhold any or all of the money. So that if a local authority is economical and tries to save money it may be penalised by the Secretary of State by his withholding all the money; whereas if it spends up to the limit presumably the Secretary of State will give it full grant. What is the position of a local authority? Under what conditions will the Secretary


of State withhold all the grant that is mentioned here as a kind of promise?
I should like to know exactly how this is to work, because at the moment, by the terms of the Bill itself, the Government would save £ for £; for every £1 the local authority saves, if the local authority can do the work cheaply, the Government will save £1. Why should they want to take away even the £1 which is left? I cannot understand that part of the Bill—it may be my dullness in the matter—and I should like to hear what are the conditions and why local authorities are to be deprived of a grant when they have expended money in doing the job which the Government set out in the Bill.
The next point which strikes us is that there are authorities, such as Glasgow and Coatbridge, which have a terrible problem with these old houses. Greenock, the constituency of my right hon. Friend, is another authority with a great problem, and Port-Glasgow. These authorities will be faced with a much larger outlay in proportion to the total population than will cities like Edinburgh and Aberdeen and than some towns which have already practically solved their housing problem. Moreover, these authorities are usually carrying a very heavy rate burden. Is any special consideration to be given to them if they cannot afford the money to tackle the job?
If the £170 is spent on these houses, on average, is that to be only the first expenditure? What is to happen to the annual upkeep? If it is to cost as much as is claimed to maintain reasonably good houses in repair, and if the Government need a 40 per cent. increase in rents to help landlords to do that, what will be the cost to a local authority of maintaining these old houses in decent repair for 15 years? Is that to fall entirely on the local authority? Are rates to be raised on those people in the slum houses to cover the cost of the annual repairs necessary to keep the houses in working order for 15 years?
These are problems which face the local authorities. There are problems, too, in the minds of my hon. Friends, who will be putting special points arising from their own knowledge of local authorities and local authority housing. We feel that this problem has been tackled without

sufficient thought having been given to the repercussions on the problem as a whole and we feel that the local authorities have not had sufficient time to grasp what is contained in this Financial Resolution and what it entails them in the way of expenditure. We appreciate the flexibility here, but flexibility has brought uncertainty. It is, therefore, a question of trying to reconcile the benefits of flexibility with the virtues of some sort of guarantee to the local authorities. That is the dilemma which I should like the right hon. Gentleman to solve when he explains the Bill in the clear, lucid terms which we are still waiting to hear.

7.58 p.m.

Captain J. A. L. Duncan: The right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) spoiled his argument by suggesting that local authorities had no guarantee of what they would get. The guarantee is in the Financial Resolution which we are discussing. I agree that there are provisions in the Financial Resolution for altering the rate of contribution but, as my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government said on the English Resolution, it is not his intention to alter the rate of contribution until experience has shown whether it is the right one or not.
We all know that we are treading on unfamiliar fields. It may be that the contributions will have to be altered but, as far as the present is concerned, to start off and for the next year or two local authorities have adequate ground—the right hon. Gentleman shakes his head—for proceeding on the assumption that they will get £7 5s. per house.

Mr. McNeil: We all agree that there can be argument to and fro about the figures, but the Minister has said to local authorities, and again to us, that he will not honour the normal housing subsidy ratio of three to one; and that is what is disturbing local authorities. The hon. and gallant Gentleman has not addressed himself to that point.

Captain Duncan: I have only just started. The right hon. Gentleman made a statement and I was trying to controvert it. Let me come to the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenock (Mr. McNeil). He said that the local authorities—and my local authorities have said the same thing to me—


want a three-to-one ratio instead of a fifty-fifty. The Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of Housing and Local Government on the English Resolution have both stated their case for a fifty-fifty grant. I am prepared to accept it on that basis. I do not think that we can argue that, because it is done on new houses, it is necessary for the three-to-one ratio to be applied to everything else.
Here is a case where we are on unfamiliar ground and we have to feel our way. It seems to me that my right hon. Friends have made out their case for the fifty-fifty grant. I hope that local authorities, although they may be disappointed, will use the provisions of the Bill to the utmost of their ability.
There are one or two questions that I should like to ask. One of the first things which a local authority has to do is to conduct a survey. I cannot go into that in great detail, but one of the burdens on a local authority, especially a small one, is the conduct of a survey. Is the cost of the survey in respect of the houses which the local authorities eventually purchase to be included in the contribution under this Financial Resolution?
Secondly, in purchasing under paragraph (a) (i) of the Money Resolution, what actually does the cost of the house include? Does it include the purchase of feu duties, ground annuals, and all the rest of it? One of the things that is worrying local authorities is the cost of demolition. Obviously it does not include that, because the house will remain inhabited, but does it include the paying out of feu duties, etc.
On paragraph (b) my right hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State gave some figures showing that the local authorities contribution and the State contribution came together to £14 10s. a year. That was based on the average cost of repair of a house of £171. Presumably there will be some rent, because these houses will continue to be inhabited. The right hon. Gentleman said that £171 was to be spent on a house at once on an average, but what is going to happen about the upkeep of the house during the next 15years? Will the rent not go some way to cover the cost of the annual upkeep afterwards. [An HON. MEMBER: "The rents will go up."] They will become

local authority houses and free from rent control.
I am trying to keep within the terms of the Financial Resolutions, but these are some of the questions that are worrying local authorities. I personally am not capable of answering them, and I should like some answer from my right hon. Friend on these questions, because if we can get these matters absolutely clear, I think that it will be of great assistance to the local authorities in working the provisions. I think that with the present heavy rate burden which local authorities are having to put on the ratepayers, they are very chary of putting on any more. I am not at all certain that the ratepayer will be helped, as some local authorities think. If we can get it clear what the actual burdens will be, I believe they will be much more willing to accept and to work the Bill in the spirit in which it is meant to be operated.
The Bill is mainly designed for the wretched tenant who has to live in these houses for the next 15 years. That ought to be in the forefront of our minds, instead of our getting angry and disputatious amongst ourselves about the views of the local authorities. The Bill is for the benefit of tenants who ought to be rehoused but cannot be rehoused, and anything that ameliorates their position and makes these houses tolerable until the tenants can be rehoused in new, modern, decent houses ought to be done.

8.6 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Steele: We would all agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Angus, South (Captain Duncan) that anything we can do to assist those who are living in these houses we would want to do. Quite frankly, as far as I can see, there is no great assistance in the Money Resolution to the tenants of these houses.
I was astounded when the Secretary of State indicated that, in his view, the Government had taken a fair decision, when, earlier, he had said that he had no idea of the cost and could give no knowledge of the basis of the figures. What we want from the Joint Under-Secretary of State tonight is much more information on how the Government have arrived at these figures, and especially the £7 5s.
I have tried to work out the figures, and, for the purpose of my calculation, I have assumed that the local authority would pay about £100 per house for acquiring the site value.

Captain Duncan: Why such a high figure?

Mr. William Ross: Does the hon. and gallant Member not know his landlords?

Mr. Steele: I should imagine that £100 a house for site value is a fair figure in so far as the local authorities might, and possibly will, be asked to pay more.
The next question that I ask myself is what income the local authority will get out of this provision. Assume that the rent of the house is £15—again, I am being generous to the local authority. Add to the £15 the contribution under the Money Resolution of £7 5s. The resultant £22 5s. a year is the total contribution which the local authority will receive.
What is the local authority's obligation? First, there are owner's rates. As 8s. in the £, with a rent of £15, the local authority must find £6 a year. Under the Money Resolution, it must also find £4 10s. to cover the loan charges. I have calculated that if the acquisition of the site costs £100, the loan charges over 15 years would be £9 a year and the local authority would require to find £4 10s.
Supervision, collection of rent and various other things of that nature, leaving aside the question of maintenance, would amount to about £3 a year. Then there is the local authority's contribution under the Money Resolution of £7 5s. a year, and on my reckoning the obligations of the local authority add up to £20 15s. a year. That means that the local authority is left with £1 10s. per year out of income and expenditure. That takes no account in my calculation of the initial expenditure which the local authority must make to bring the house into a state of repair, and it takes no account of maintenance over the years.
At present, there is a statutory obligation on local authorities to set aside £8 per annum for the maintenance of the new house. If the Government have decreed in their wisdom that the local authority has to set aside that sum, how much are

they going to decree that the local authority should set aside for the maintenance of a house which is about to be condemned? That is a question which has to be answered. Where is the local authority to get the money to do essential repairs? It must raise a loan, and that means more loan charges. For all these reasons we are entitled to know much more about how the Government have arrived at these calculations.
I find, in the borough of Dumbarton, without taking into account the county at all, there are roughly over 500 houses which would be affected by this Bill and on which a calculation would have to be made. If my calculation is correct—and I have gone into it as carefully as I can—then the whole burden is to rest upon the local authority for the repair and maintenance of these houses. All the Government are to do is to contribute the money to ensure that the owners' rates, the loan charges and the supervision are paid. There are already heavy charges for houses on the ratepayers of Dumbarton, and I think it is unfair that they should be asked to carry this extra burden.
May I say this to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. He should not assume for one moment that once these houses have been taken over by the local authority it will get away with a bit of paint and a little patchwork here and there for repairs. All our experience shows—and I have in mind in this connection the Army huts taken over by the local authorities—that pressure will be brought to bear on local councillors to have proper repairs done to this old property. The hon. Member for Lanark (Mr. Patrick Maitland), who is not in his place tonight, has been getting a bit of publicity because he has been staying in some of these Army huts. If he intends to visit all the houses which will be affected by this Bill, then he will have a big job to do. When the local authorities become owners of this type of property there will be a moral justification for establishing some standard of repairs.
When a local authority examines this question and finds what it is to get it will say to the borough engineer or the architect. "Here is the problem; these are the houses; how much will it cost?" And the answer of the architect and the


borough engineer will be, "What standard do you want?" Of course, when the borough engineer or the architect asks the local authority what the standard is to be, the local authority can only say that, because of the provision, they cannot have a very high standard and, in fact, that all the money will come from the ratepayers themselves.
The other thing is that although the Government say that the contribution of £7 5s. per year will come from them, if the local authority, in its wisdom, wants to get rid of the houses quickly, whenever it does so it loses the rent. It therefore becomes an added burden. So, when the local authorities look at this Financial Resolution, they will want to maintain these houses and get as much rent as they can over the 15 years. That is wrong. It should be the reverse: to encourage local authorities to get rid of the houses as quickly as possible. I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary of State will be able to give us more details as to how the Government arrived at these figures

8.16 p.m.

Mr. James McInnes: When the Secretary of State was introducing this Financial Resolution I interjected to inquire whether he would indicate where precisely under Clause 4 he was given the authority to increase or to lower the sum specified. At that time the right hon. Gentleman was referring to the 50 per cent. of the annual loan charge and to the £7 5s. annual payment over a period of 15 years.
The right hon. Gentleman referred me to subsection 2 (b). In the absence of the right hon. Gentleman I presume that his right hon. and gallant Friend will confirm that the power contained in the Bill to increase or to lower the sums relates only to paragraph (b) and not to (a), in other words it relates only to the contribution covering 15 years and does not operate in relation to the annual payment equal to one half of the annual loan charge. To that extent—I do not say intentionally—the right hon. Gentleman certainly misled the Committee when he indicated that he possessed the power to put these subsidies either up or down. Many figures have been floating about this evening and I challenge the right hon. Gentleman on the figures which he himself has provided on capital cost.

Commander Galbraith: I think the hon. Gentleman is being rather unfair to my right hon. Friend, who drew his attention to the relevant part of the Clause. If he reads that, the hon. Gentleman will see that it refers directly to paragraph (b). My right hon. Friend was not misleading the Committee.

Mr. McInnes: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman himself has not caught up with the position, because that is what I was saying. The Secretary of State was dealing at the time with the annual payment equal to one half of the annual loan charge and to the £7 5s. as subsidy. In respect of both he indicated that he possessed power under Clause 4 either to increase or to reduce, but the fact emerges that he does not possess this power in respect of the annual payment so far as the one half of the annual loan charge is concerned. It only relates, as the Minister has indicated, to paragraph (b), namely, to the £7 5s. contribution.
I want to deal with the figures which the Minister himself has provided. As to the capital cost figures, which were estimated at £155 at the time but because of the increased subsidy are now going up to £170, I understand that these figures work out so that the loan charge will be approximately £14, maintenance and management £11 and owner's rates at £7 5s. on the present rental of £13 10s., making a total outgoing of £29 7s. 6d., from which we deduct the average new rent, which, incidentally, increases from £13 10s. to £16 4s.
Surely the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has not failed to appreciate that if the new rent becomes £16 4s. 6d. the owner's rate is entirely wrong. In other words, the owner's rate of £5 0s. 1d. should be £6 2s. So that to that extent the Government have placed right away on the local authority an additional liability of another £1. The local authority will have to pay not £7 5s. but £8 7s. against the Government's £7 5s.
But that is not all. The local authority will be compelled to meet many other charges. As the hon. and gallant Member for Angus, South (Captain Duncan) indicated, they will be involved in taking a complete survey of the slum problem in their area. They will be involved in the preparation of reports which will mean additional staffs for the medical officers, and they will be involved in one hundred


and one other items that are not mentioned in the Bill.
Why is it that when the Government deal with the best type of property which still remains with private enterprise they agree to stabilise the owner's rate and also the tenant's rate so far as any increased rental is involved? Why do they not adopt the same procedure with the local authority tenants? Why do they not say that when local authorities take over these slum houses to repair them, if they impose any increased rentals as owners they will not be liable and the tenants also will not be liable for any increased rates in connection with the increased rentals? To that extent local authorities are justified in their demand that a proper ratio to meet adequately the inevitable outlay in which they will be involved should be on a basis of three to one. Even at this stage I hope that the Minister will be disposed to reconsider the matter.

Mr. John Rankin: On a point of order. Are we to have the privilege, Sir Charles, of hearing any speeches from Government back-benchers in support of a Government Motion?

The Chairman: That is not a point of order.

8.25 p.m.

Mr. Cyril Bence: The local authority of Clydebank is opposed entirely to this Money Resolution. Not only does it consider that the ratio of so-called fifty-fifty mentioned in the Resolution is inadequate, but it is of the opinion that in the ultimate analysis the ratio will be probably three to one—three for the local authority and one for the Treasury. It is further concerned that the Treasury here definitely limits its liability, but the liability of the local authority is quite unlimited.
In respect of the burgh of Clydebank, I want to quote an extract from a report made to a Royal Commission in 1917. This is on housing construction in the burgh of Clydebank and will give the background to the tremendous financial problem which will be faced in the burgh if the Bill becomes law. Evidence was given by a Mr. George Ross, the sanitary inspector of Clydebank, no relation, I

believe, of my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross). He stated:
any difficulties which have arisen in connection with the provision of adequate housing accommodation have been caused through the speculation in building sites and that most of the land in the burgh is held by six separate owners and may be purchased at from £400 to £2,000 per acre, representing a feu duty of £20 to £150….
But this first price asked for the land does not end the question. Mr. Ross stated that after the land has been acquired the building speculator comes in. He stated that as a rule ten tenements of three or four storey's in height are erected on each acre each tenement having from nine to twelve separate houses. When these tenements are finished, a feu duty or ground rent of £10 to £35 is created on each, which gives a feu duty or ground rent ranging from £100 to £350 per acre per annum….

The Chairman: The hon. Member is going a little beyond the Money Resolution. He did state that he hoped to raise this matter in his Second Reading speech, but he cannot raise it now.

Mr. Bence: I asked your permission, Sir Charles, because this is the background of the difficulties of Clydebank. Ifyou will permit me to complete the quotation, although I admit that it has nothing to do with the Money Resolution, it constitutes the background of the complaint of Clydebank against the Money Resolution. The quotation continues:
When these tenements are finished a feu duty or ground rent of £10 to £35 is created on each which gives a feu duty or ground rent ranging from £100 to £350 per acre per annum, representing a capital charge for land of from £2,000 to £7,000 per acre….In reply to a question put to him, Mr. Ross stated that he thought the feu duties in the burghs and the practice of constituting ground annuals, or sub-feu duties over and above are serious drawbacks to building and that the latter isone of the worst features in connection with the building trade….Mr. Ross put in an appendix…giving a table showing in the case of several properties purchased and feued between the years 1888 and 1896 the rentals and the amount thereof which was composed of the rental of the land including the sub-feu duties imposed. These showed the proportion of ground rent to total rental as ranging from 8·51 to as high as 23·15 per cent.
That is the proportion of the feu to the rent.
In twelve of the twenty properties the ground rent accounted for over one-sixth of the total rental, while in four it was actually between one-fifth and one-fourth….

The Chairman: I have been very lenient with the hon. Member and he has


said a great deal that is quite irrelevant to the Money Resolution. I hope he will now get on to the business before the Committee.

Mr. Bence: I will terminate the quotation there because really that is the end. I have given the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the background, and I want also to tell him that a number of these feus in Clydebank have not been collected on an average of from four to 11 years. Most of the properties are practically derelict and when the burgh takes them over—I could quote a particular instance of the cost involved—it has been asked to pay the arrears to the feu superior in one case where the feu was £60 a year.
The owner, the feu superior, refuses to sell unless the burgh is prepared to pay the arrears. There is no provision to reimburse the local authority for the cost of acquiring feus. When we assess the site value of properties we find that the site value of an acre of land in a feu has not been collected for eight years and the bond holder has not collected the interest.
As soon as it gets hold of a house for repair or demolition, is the burgh of Clydebank to be responsible far a feu or a feu superior which is not collected for 11 years? Are the ratepayers of Clydebank to rescue the bad debts of the owners of the land? That is what we in Clydebank want to know. We are already paying a heavy enough burden for the replacements due to the blitz. Are we now to recoup the bad debts due to the neglect of the owners of the property during the last 50 years because they have mortgaged their property and used the money raised to invest in more lucrative enterprises and allowed their property to go to rot? We in Clydebank want to know that.
The people and the local authority of Clydebank are deeply indignant that there should be imposed upon them the necessity to acquire bad debts and to patch up these houses at the cost of the ratepayers and the local authority, whereas the landlord and the landowner who have never collected their feu have the prospect of collecting it at the expense of the local authority.
I hope that this Financial Resolution will be taken back and a more just one

drawn up to help local authorities in Scotland who are suffering from the neglect of the last 70 years under Tory rule.

8.31 p.m.

Mr. R. Brooman-White: I rise mainly to reassure the hon. Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin) that he will hear support for this Money Resolution from this side of the Committee. I do not wish to follow the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) into the very intricate municipal affairs of Clydebank, but I wish to refer to the last point he made—that the incidence of feu duties represented a serious problem and had given rise to certain concern. I hesitate to embark on a legal argument, as I am no expert on these matters. If I am wrong I shall no doubt be corrected from the benches opposite, or from the Front Bench.
I explored that point a few days ago with lawyers in my own constituency. As I understand the situation, the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East is under a misapprehension. I understand that the valuer will value the estate and the feu, and the first claim on the money available goes to the holder of the feu, any residual money going to the man who is at present owning the site. If the value of the site is virtually nil the present holder of the site will get nothing. If there is anything to come it will go to the holder of the feu first.
In fact, the ratepayer is not being mulcted. The value of the feu and the site will be assessed by the valuer as one unit of money. I see lawyers shaking their heads, but that is the situation as I understand it as a result of explanation given me by other lawyers. No doubt we shall be given a more authoritative explanation at a later stage. The first claim to that money is that of the owner of the feu and the residue goes to the present owner of the site. There are two people with a claim on the site, and prior claim is with the holder of the feu. Of course, the present owner of the site will get nothing for a site that is, in fact, valueless.

Mr. A. C. Manuel: This is a most important point, which I hope the hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend will clear up. The hon. Member says that the ground superior will have first call on the money which it costs


to acquire the site. Is the hon. Gentleman speaking about the arrears of feu duties that have accumulated, or is he trying to indicate that there will be complete purchase of the feu rights from the ground superior for all future time by the local authority? That is a point we must have clarified. If the hon. Member is telling us that that is the case I am pleased to hear it, but I am not sure that he is correct.

Mr. Brooman-White: As I understand, the valuer puts—

The Chairman: Order. This is quite beyond the Money Resolution, which only authorises the payment of money by Parliament.

Mr. Manuel: On a point of order. This is a most important point. The 50 per cent. indicated in the Money Resolution is expressly to be used for the purchase on a site valuation basis. All these houses dealt with in the Bill are property and the point that the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Brooman-White) is dealing with is whether the 50 per cent. acquisition cost proposal includes feu duties.

The Chairman: I did not say it was not important, I said it was out of order. This Money Resolution authorises the payment of money by Parliament. There is no question of going back into the past.

Mr. Ross: Surely if a local authority buys over property under a feu charter it becomes responsible for the payment of feu duties and it can only be feu duties on this property. From that point of view the money to be provided by the Government for the maintenance of this property must contain something to meet the charge of feu duties.

The Chairman: It may be in order in other respects, but it is certainly not in order under the Money Resolution.

Mr. Thomas Fraser: Is not the cost of the feu part of the cost of the house specifically referred to in the Money Resolution? This contribution made by the Secretary of State is 50 per cent.
of the annual loan charges referable to the cost of purchase of each such house.

This cost of feu is part of the cost of the house. The local authorities have made no bones about it in consulting some of us about this Bill. I submit to you, Sir Charles—and I appreciate it is a difficult point—that the cost of the feu is an integral part of the cost of the house.

Mr. Woodburn: Further to that point. In the original Act it is defined. What is called the purchase of a house is the purchase at cleared site value, that is, as if there were no house there. Therefore, clearly the purchase has nothing to do with the building. There is no money paid for the building at all. One purchases only at cleared site value, according to the terms of the Act to which this refers, and I take it that that refers to the purchase of the ground or the feu.

Sir William Darling: Further to that point of order, Sir Charles. May I direct your attention to paragraph (a) (i)? The Money Resolution provides for money for the purchase not of a feu but, as it specifically says,
a contribution equal to one-half of the annual loan charges referable to the cost of purchase of each house….
I have yet to learn that a house includes a feu.

Mr. Woodburn: Further to that point, Sir Charles. May I ask you to ask the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling) to read that part of the Bill referring to the definition of the purchase of a house, which is the purchase at cleared site value?

The Chairman: I am not a legal expert and I can only go by what is on the paper before me. There is nothing on it about feu duties.

Mr. McNeil: May I put this point, which is not a point of law, but common sense? I think that if the Secretary of State for Scotland were consulted, he would agree that in his consultations with the local authorities he certainly allowed the local authorities to make representations upon this very point of feu duties. Perhaps you, Sir Charles, will consult the right hon. Gentleman.

The Chairman: I am working on what is in front of me and there is nothing about feu duties in this Financial Resolution.

Mr. Woodburn: May I further submit that it depends on the definition of the purchase of a house as it exists in this Financial Resolution? That definition must be sought in other parts of the Bill. The definition in other parts of the Bill makes it clear that this has nothing to do with the purchase of a property but that it refers to the purchase of the cleared site value as if the house were not there. One is paying nothing at all for the building which exists on the site.

The Chairman: I am sorry to be difficult. I am here only to help and to do my duty. I personally do not mind what is discussed, but it appears to me that there is nothing about feu duties in the Resolution, and under the Orders under which I work I cannot allow it to be discussed.

Mr. T. Fraser: I did not intend to say anything about this, but I must point out that the Secretary of State for Scotland will not deny that the cost of the feu is part of the cost of the house. He could put us all right and give guidance to us. If he says that the cost of the feu has nothing to do with the cost of the house, we shall have to have another argument at some other time about the cost of the feu; but if he says that the cost of the feu is in fact an integral part of the cost of the house referred to in the Money Resolution, then I submit that he will be giving guidance which we must take if we are to do our duty as Members of Parliament. I suggest that the ball has passed to the Secretary of State.

Sir W. Darling: Might I draw attention to Clause 35 of the Bill in which a house is described? It states:
…means the whole subjects comprised in a controlled tenancy or prospective controlled tenancy, or the whole subjects of which a tenant retains possession as statutory tenant.
That is the only relevant reference and I submit that it has some relation to the observations which have been made.

Mr. Rankin: It is clear that the Committee is in a difficulty as to interpretation. I submit that, in fairness to the Committee, the Secretary of State or the competent legal adviser, the Lord Advocate, should now come to our rescue and tell us exactly what is intended by this phrase in the Money Resolution.

Commander Galbraith: These are matters which will be of some importance at some stage during the discussion

of the Bill. Whether or not they enter into the questions for discussion on the Money Resolution is not for me to judge, but perhaps it would be helpful if I were to say that a new basis of compensation will shortly be discussed with the local authority associations, the property-owning interests and the other interests concerned. It is hoped to include these when dealing with the forthcoming Town and Country Planning Bill.

Mr. Manuel: Then withdraw the Money Resolution.

Mr. Woodburn: The Joint Under-Secretary has now referred to something which is to come in the future. I think we can all agree that that is not what we are discussing now. I take it that there must be a definition of what is meant in the Money Resolution by the purchase of a house. What the Joint Under-Secretary has been asked to do is confirm or deny that the purchase of a house under the Resolution refers not to any property upon the land but to the purchase of the site value—that is, the purchase of the land as if it were a cleared site. In my recollection, that is the definition in the original Act. Now that the Lord Advocate is present, we can have a clear legal definition of all this.

Mr. J. McGovern: I beg to move, "That the debate be now adjourned."
I do so because we have arrived at such a difficult position that there is no person here who can tell us exactly whether we are allowed to discuss the feu under the Financial Resolution. As there is such a difference of opinion and so much confusion, might we not reasonably adjourn at this stage so that the matter may be cleared up? Then when we come back, after the Easter Recess, we can have an interpretation from the highest authority and a fresh approach to the matter. We can consider it after we have had a legal interpretation.

The Chairman: I am not willing to accept that Motion.

Hon. Members: Why not?

Dr. H. Morgan: Send for Mr. Speaker.

The Chairman: The reason is simply that I am not willing to accept it. It


seems to me that if the Money Resolution had been drafted to make it clear that feu duties were included it would have been all right, but, in my submission, as a layman, they are not included in the Money Resolution, and my Ruling is that they are not to be discussed. I have listened very patiently to the arguments. I may be wrong, but that is my opinion.

Mr. McNeil: With great respect, Sir Charles, during the earlier proceedings in Committee on the comparable English Resolution discussion relating to the site was not only permitted but had to take place. It would be utterly incomprehensible that a local authority, because of a difference between Scots and English law, should address itself to the purchase of a site without having regard to the feu. I go so far as to invite the Secretary of State to tell us whether he would approve of such an undertaking. The attached subject of feu must be inherent in a Scottish definition of a cleared site. A purchase could not be carried out in any other fashion.

Commander Galbraith: I wonder whether I can help the Committee further. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) correctly said, under the existing law relating to the compulsory acquisition by a local authority of an unfit house, it is the cleared site value which must be taken. I should have thought that if one purchased on that basis or on any other basis one purchased subject to the burdens which were on the land at the time. That appears to me to be the correct situation.

The Chairman: I am very glad to have this guidance. Feu duty is, in fact, in order on the Money Resolution. I beg the Committee's pardon.

Mr. Rankin: Further to the point of order—

The Chairman: There is now no point of order. I have given way and apologised.

Mr. Rankin: The Government Front Bench have behaved scandalously and have wasted the time of the Committee. That information could have been given at the beginning of the debate.

Mr. Brooman-White: Some time ago I was saying that this was an extremely intricate point. I am now aware that it is even more intricate than I imagined. Although it may be in order, I have no intention of delving any deeper into the problem, but shall be glad to leave it to be elucidated by hon. Members with greater legal and municipal experience than I have.
I have been surprised in our discussion so far to find such readiness on the part of hon. Members opposite to suggest, as did the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern), that the Bill should be withdrawn and delayed and that the Money Resolution should be taken back, for the object of the Measure, as hon. Members opposite know well, is to mitigate the conditions under which people are living in Scottish slums and to expedite the clearing of the slums.

Mr. Manuel: Deal with the Money Resolution.

Mr. Brooman-White: The object of much of the argument of hon. Members opposite has been to have the Resolution withdrawn and to delay the progress of the Bill.
We have been asked whether the money is being directed towards a worthy objective. We could find no better objective than the clearance of slums and, while we are waiting for the slums to be cleared, the improvement of the conditions of the buildings, so far as that is possible to make them a little more tolerable for the occupants. With regard to the fifty-fifty formula, hon. Gentlemen opposite have been pleading for a bigger allocation for the local authorities. These matters are subject to negotiation, and a certain advance has been made in the position of the local authorities. I believe I am correct in saying that the fifty-fifty ratio is the working formula for most legislation at the present time. [HON MEMBERS: "No."] The old principle was three to one, but, in fact, I am informed that, certainly in the area I represent, and on the advice of people in that area whom I have consulted in the last few days, it works out at about fifty-fifty at present.
If hon. Gentlemen opposite object to that formula, they are at least aware that the arrangements are flexible, and there


is room for a certain amount of easement. Easement has already been given and it does not seem to me that the precise percentage, and the precise allocation of responsibility as between Government and local authority on the financial side, is anything like an adequate ground for the deep-rooted objections which hon. Gentlemen opposite have been professing to express against this Measure as a whole.
On the figure of £171, there has been statistical argument almost as complex as the argument on the feu duty, but this figure of £171 is a tentative figure. If hon. Gentlemen opposite do not think that it is adequate or that it is too great, they have certainly advanced no arguments to substantiate their point of view. I do not think that hon. Gentlemen opposite can criticise this figure unless they can produce some actual facts to illustrate that more than is necessary to patch up these houses to a reasonable degree, or that the £171 provides either too much or too little for that purpose.
If hon. Gentlemen think that this figure is too little, let them advance that argument. But that figure has been laid down in the Resolution as the best which expert opinion can at present agree as reasonable. If it is found, in practice, that this figure is either too high or too low, then adjustments can be made later. That seems to me an empirical and sensible approach to the problem.
I thought there was much more substance in the point made by the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele)—a point which I have, indeed, raised myself in my own inquiries about the probable effect of these proposals. The hon. Gentleman wondered whether the payment of this sum over a period of 15 years would be a certain disincentive to the rapid clearance of these sites—that, money having been paid out by the local authorities, they would not make the maximum progress in clearing the sites because of the desire, perhaps, to draw contributions for the longest period to ease their own burdens.
I am assured that that is extremely unlikely to happen. Local authorities practically everywhere in Scotland are desperately pressed for land on which to build, and, if they can get these sites cleared, it will be in their interests and in

the interests of the community to do so as quickly as possible. I hope that that will materialise as a fact.
Finally, the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) said in his opening remarks, and I think most rightly, that the problem lay in striking a just balance between, on the one hand, having a Bill which is too rigid, and, on the other, one which will leave the local authorities in much doubt or uncertainty. I have heard nothing in the arguments of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite which leads me to accept the view that this Resolution, as drafted, does not strike as reasonable a mean between these two obvious difficulties as can be achieved.

8.55 p.m.

Mr. William Ross: I congratulate the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Brooman-White) on his Casabianca act. However, I do not think that he was too successful in his support of the Government, for he managed to tangle his Front Bench in a wonderful argument about feu duties. I think it is an adverse reflection on the quality of our Scottish Ministers when they cannot clear up such an obvious point within a few minutes. If a new site has to be bought for redevelopment the feu has to be purchased. To buy the feu one has to pay a sum equivalent to the annual feu duty for 20 years.
The first point I want to make is this. It has been said once or twice from the Government Front Bench that they did not want to make this proposition too attractive for the local authorities. But the local authorities do not want to under-take it at all. The whole idea that local authorities should become owners of slums is repugnant to them. If the Secretary of State wants local authorities to do anything about this matter—and this is a permissive part of the Bill—he had better make the proposition sufficiently attractive for them and for the general ratepayers to accept the principle of becoming owners of probably some of the worst houses in Scotland.
Apart from the hope that local authorities have of wiping out these slums, they will, of course, appreciate that any labour engaged on patching up these slums will detract from their ability to go forward


with new housing. That is another matter which makes the proposition unattractive to local authorities. The Secretary of State must, therefore, face the financial implications and not merely say, "Well, the best thing is to make a balance, and fifty-fifty is the best balance." There is no justification for applying that balance here.
Then I come to the Money Resolution itself. We are told that the Government are to make
a contribution equal to one-half of the annual loan charges referable to the cost of purchase of each such house"—
which includes the purchase of the feu duty—
for each financial year in which any part of the house is used for housing purposes.
But we are also told that the calculation of the annual loan charges is based on a period of 60 years. Therefore, the responsibility of the local authority is definitely one of paying this loan charge for 60 years. The responsibility of the Government is to pay only a share of that over, perhaps, three years or five years, and at the most 15 years. Let us say that it is 10 years. For 10 years the annual loan charge will be borne fifty-fifty. But for the remaining 50 years the entire loan charge falls upon the ratepayers. I do not think that that is a very attractive proposition for the Scottish local authorities.
The second part of the Resolution deals with the money that has been spent on bringing a house into tolerable condition and the maintenance of such a house over 15 years. We are told that somehow or other—no one knows quite how—the Government have arrived at a figure which over 15 years is to cost about £171. The hon. Member for Rutherglen asked us to say what we thought ought to be the figure. Really, it shows an amazing wandering around—[An HON. MEMBER: "The bush."] Well, I do not know if St. Andrew's House could be called the bush. It is not a cleared site, but it is time that it was a development area. The Government started off with a figure of £5 5s. Then they changed it and reached a figure of £6 10s. Now they have come to the Committee with a figure representing the Government contribution or £7 5s.
It is clear that the Government under-estimated this matter from the start and moved always in the direction of giving more; which demonstrates to me that they are convinced even now that they are not properly meeting their obligation to make the scheme sufficiently attractive to local authorities. The Government have denied that the three-to-one proportion should work here, but why should it not? We actually have it in other parts of the Bill. An hon. Gentleman opposite said that the three-to-one proportion was out of date, but if he looks at the modernisation part of the Bill he will see that the Government will give a subsidy of up to £400 for modernising a house. How is that money to be paid? Three parts by the Government and one part by the local authority. The same is true for new housing.
We are now talking about housing that has to be put into habitable condition for 15 years. There are other houses that local authorities are concerned about, temporary ones made of aluminium and other substances, and these houses were built to last only for 10 years. What was the ratio of the contributions there? Three to one, being three parts from the Government and one from the local authority. When providing temporary accommodation there is every reason why it should be at least at a ratio of three to one.
The hon. Gentleman who spoke last, and who was probably the first back bench Scottish Tory to speak, said that this was a worthy object on which to spend money, namely, to clear the slums; but the object is not to clear the slums at all but to patch up the slums. We shall never make them any better, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling) knows. We had a Rural Workers Housing Act, under which we actually did this work of patching up. The report of the advisory council on this matter said that the money spent in that way under that Act was a great waste of public money.

Sir W. Darling: If there was a cottage in the country which had no bath or water closet, but now has them because of that Act, is that patching?

Mr. Ross: If that had been done I would not call it patching.

Sir W. Darling: It was done.

Mr. Ross: The fact remains that the advisory council said that there was a grave waste of public money, and that is the point we have to face now. It would be a waste of money to patch up some of these houses because they are ancient monuments and the Financial Resolution is not directed towards doing that. In the village of Kilmaurs money was spent upon houses that were put up in the 17th century, and it did not make good houses out of them. The same thing may happen with some of the slums, and local authorities will see the frustration of their hopes. The object behind this Money Resolution is not sufficiently attractive to local authorities. It will dash their hopes and involve their ratepayers in a considerable rise in rates.

9.4 p.m.

Sir William Darling: I am disappointed with the somewhat petulant approach of the Opposition to this Money Resolution.

Mr. Ross: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that if I was petulant it was simply because we had not had his presence for so long during our discussion.

Sir W. Darling: I did not know that the hon. Gentleman was so allergic to my personal presence. I shall consider whether to cultivate his society a little more in the future—as he seems to desireit—with a view to relieving him of these petulant depressions. I was not referring to the hon. Gentleman personally but to the Opposition generally, which seems to have shown a lack of its usual perspicacity in approaching a practical matter.
None would deny that this is a difficult business. I am not throwing any brickbats at the Opposition, but no previous attempt has ever been made to deal on such a wide front with all the aspects of the housing situation. This Government have made that attempt—other Governments in our place might have done the same thing—on three lines. First of all, they have built a large number of new houses, and they now propose to attack the other two disadvantages in the housing situation, the slums and the rents. They are doing a very bold and comprehensive thing in making that attempt.
Just as in the building of new houses many changes were made over the years in the amount of subsidy granted to induce local authorities to build, so, in this instance, there has been a great deal of giving and taking and experiment. I think that my right hon. Friend has put up a very good introductory proposal. Just as in the early days, when we were beginning to build houses, the grants were comparatively low, so—

The Deputy-Chairman: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will come to the Money Resolution.

Sir W. Darling: —in the same way, trial and error will enable us to arrive at the proper subsidy which will induce the action required to improve the housing position of our people. We want to start somewhere, but my quarrel with hon. Members opposite is that they do not want to start at all. Their contribution to the debate is merely to say that this shall not be done, and that this evil shall be perpetuated.
My right hon. Friend has made a start and has reached a good deal of agreement with local authorities on the matter. I speak with a knowledge of local authority experience which is certainly not inferior to that of any hon. Members opposite who profess, without ever having been members of a local authority, to speak on their behalf. I was on the Convention of Royal Burghs for three years; I was connected with the City Council, and chairman of it for three years.
This is a proposition which, by and large, offers inducements to local authorities who are alive to the inadequacy of housing conditions in their areas. It will start them in their action, but it will not do the whole job. I believe that there will be further adjustments. My right hon. Friend has already made one adjustment. But what we want is to get started right away and to give some inducement to the labour force available to improve the condition of housing.
This proposition will not revolutionise the housing situation, but it will represent a step forward, and from that step forward we shall advance still further. Hon. Members opposite have no alternative plan to offer. Is nothing to be done? I suggest that in the few years left to my right hon. Friend in his office he is right to make a start. He has made a start on


very satisfactory lines. I know of no local authority which will not do something along those lines. Some will do more than others, but all will act. It is action that we want, and this Financial Resolution will produce it.

9.9 p.m.

Mr. A. C. Manuel: We are always pleased to see the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling) in the Chamber during the course of our debates, and to hear his contributions. However, I am afraid that I cannot accept his explanation of the reception which this Money Resolution will receive from Scottish local authorities. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we both entered local authority work in, I believe, the same year.

Sir W. Darling: I was not aware of that.

Mr. Manuel: We must meet and compare our experiences. I therefore claim as much right to speak as a member of a local authority, both in experience and time, as the hon. Member.
We can take this matter a little further. In his opening remarks the Secretary of State for Scotland indicated that the Under-Secretary of State had had further meetings with the Scottish local authority associations, but did not reveal what discussions had taken place. The Secretary of State did indicate that the local authorities were not too pleased, but, of course, that is in direct contradiction to what the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South was saying. I would like the Under-Secretary of State to tell us something about this latter meeting he has had with the Scottish local authority associations. I do not want the impressions of the city of Edinburgh to be conveyed to this Committee as being in any way representative of the feeling in the other cities in Scotland—

Mr. Ross: Edinburgh makes no impression.

Mr. Manuel: Far less than the county council associations or the Convention of Royal Burghs. I do know that individual authorities in Ayrshire, many of them not of my political persuasion, have discussed this Bill. I should not be surprised to learn that the City of Perth has not also protested to the Secretary of State and asked for the withdrawal of this Bill.

I know that their legal adviser—not a councillor—is a capable representative.

Colonel Alan Gomme-Duncan: The leader of the City of Perth is a legal representative?

Mr. Manuel: I understood that it was common knowledge that where a city or local authority was dominated by Tory influence it was always led by the nose by its legal official and had no mind of its own.
However, if we could have some information about this meeting with the local authorities it would certainly be helpful in determining how we should make up our minds tonight. After all, we are here representing Scotland, not the Tory Government and its half-hatched plans. Those plans seemingly have had little or no thought given to them because we have already had a departure. The first Money Resolution has been altered; we have had a jump from £6 to £7 5s. We have had, in an unguarded moment, the Under-Secretary of State having to indicate that there will be still another change at some future date which will have repercussions of the moneys allocated to the local authorities.
What sort of way is this to introduce legislation dealing with money allocations to Scottish local authorities? We really do not know what we are discussing because, while there is a Money Resolution to which we are now supposed to devote our attention, we are told that there will be something else coming later which will cover the work which, presumably, this Resolution is to cover in its present form.
I want to consider this three-to-one ratio that the local authorities wanted. The local authorities know the job will be difficult. The rates are soaring in every local authority area in Scotland where they are trying to undertake the work which they should normally under-take in the course of the financial year. They are having difficulty because of that soaring rate, and, undoubtedly, if they tackle, or try to tackle, this the proposals in the Bill in any realistic way it will cause a rate increase. I am convinced of that from the information which I have.
The Secretary of State said that he did not think that this three-to-one ratio was very good. He said that it was all


right for new houses, where the initial expenditure was heavy. But does he not think that, although the initial expenditure is heavy, there is not so great an on-cost expenditure for a new house, year by year, after one has let it, as there is with this old type of dwelling, where, although the initial expenditure is not so heavy, one has more annual repair expenditure than one has with a brand new house, with everything lasting for a fair number of years before it needs renewal? That line of argument is not very good.
We should be clear about this £7 5s. for patching up, because certain people inhabiting these houses are imagining that they will get much more done than will be the case. This is to be a question of wind-proofing and making watertight, and nothing else, and it will be fairly difficult with the money allowable under the Resolution even to put this elementary provision into operation. Therefore, when the Secretary of State talks about this fifty-fifty share in the annual upkeep, he should not forget that local authorities are to be shoved into an unenviable position.
If the local authorities do what the Government want them to do these houses will come under the ownership and control of those authorities. The tenants will immediately expect from the local authorities treatment which they have never had from the slum landlords. Continual representations will be made, through local councillors, to borough council officials. People will want the houses put into a better condition than they are in today, and rightly so. We are to have this fifty-fifty basis, with £7 5s. coming from the Government and an equal sum from the local authorities. No one can indicate to what extent that £7 5s. will be exceeded in each year, but I am confident that it will be exceeded. The Secretary of State talks glibly about a fifty-fifty share, but it will not be a fifty-fifty share at all.
I was interested in what the Under-secretary of State revealed—although he was not very forthcoming—about the feu duty basis. The Bill does not mention the cleared site value—

Commander Galbraith: The law already exists, and the hon. Member, who is a great expert on local authority matters, should know what the law is.

It was enunciated to him for his benefit by his right hon. Friend.

Mr. Manuel: The words used by my right hon. Friend in making his point were the proper words, but I am now dealing with the words in the Bill. The Bill does not mention the word "cleared" and I do not think the Government mean "cleared." They mean "acquisitioned." The Under-Secretary of State, in a not very forthcoming manner, said that he thought the purchase outright of the ground burden would be accomplished by the local authority in the cost of acquisition. Can he give the Committee any idea what he thinks will be the average cost in the City of Glasgow for buying outright the feu or the ground burden on any particular site?
Has he gone into the matter in order to decide the fifty-fifty acquisition cost to be shared with the local authorities? What does he think is the average cost of purchasing out-right the feu duties from the ground superior in the City of Glasgow? What will it be in the small burgh areas? An average surely can be struck for each of these areas, and I think that the acquisition cost should have been on that basis.
There is another consideration that ought to be borne in mind in connection with this £7 5s. for a period of 15 years. The local authorities hitherto, in dealing with this type of slum property, have been able, when serving a closing or demolition order, to say to the previous owner of the slum, "You will demolish the dwelling on that site, and if you do not under our slum clearance law, we can serve notice on you and clear the site and recover the cost from you."
Once the local authority becomes the owner of the site it is to be left with the slum building which it has to demolish, and there is nothing in the Bill about costs of demolition. That is another on-cost to the local authorities in connection with site acquisition, which they will need to meet before the sites can be used for any other purpose. I hope that we shall have some information about that, and be told whether the Joint Under-Secretary of State could also reconsider the cost of demolition to help the local authorities in this matter.

9.22 p.m.

Mr. James H. Hoy: I want to consider the compensation or share the Government have to pay to local authorities, because, as has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel), as well as by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), there is still some dubiety as to the Government's intention. Let me quote what was said by the Secretary of State on the Second Reading of the Bill:
Clause 4 provides for Exchequer contributions of £6 10s. per house for 15 years and for the Exchequer to meet 50 per cent. of the cost of acquisition at site values."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th December, 1953; Vol. 521. c. 2002.]
I am certain the Bill does not say that. Later the right hon. Gentleman read something out of the Bill which appeared to contradict it.
It is true they will meet a certain part of the payment while the house continues to be occupied. What my hon. Friends and I desire to know is what is to happen when the house ceases to be occupied. It is not always certain, even when the house ceases to be occupied and the site is cleared, that it will be developed for housing. It may be set aside for some other purpose. We would like to know what burden the local authority will have to bear, and whether it will be shared with the national Exchequer.
There has been some doubt also about what the contribution should be, varying between five guineas and £7 5s., and we are surely entitled to ask, in view of these changes, whether the Government intend to give this matter any further consideration. The Secretary of State, in opening the debate today, said that he had managed to push up the figure from £5 5s. to £7 5s., and the Joint Under-Secretary of State, in a response concerning feu duties, said the Government were giving some further consideration to some other proposal. I do not know what he meant, but these are very important matters indeed for the local authorities. I ask the Secretary of State not to be persuaded by the eloquence of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling), who, I am sorry to see, has left. Despite the fact that he paraded his record in local government, he sought to prove to the Committee that we on this side were quite wrong with regard to feu duties. Having all this history of local

service behind him, the hon. Gentleman gave that as his opinion, and the Joint Under-Secretary had to tell him that he was quite wrong.
The real point at issue, however, is what is to happen to these sites and the burden which the local authority will have to bear. If the house ceases to be occupied, who will carry that burden? Is it to be the responsibility of the local authority or is it to be shared by the national Exchequer? At this late stage of the proceedings, having regard to the importance of this matter, we are entitled to have from the Government a clear exposition of the meaning of the Financial Resolution and the Bill.

9.26 p.m.

Mr. Hector McNeil: I would have been happy had I felt it unnecessary to intervene at this stage, but my hon. and right hon. Friends have raised precise points which trouble not only this Committee but the local authorities upon whom the Minister and his right hon. and gallant Friend must completely depend for any action under the Bill to which this Financial Resolution relates.
On the Second Reading of the Bill, the Minister felt a little annoyed with me when I suggested that he had been hurried and that he would have done better to have had adequate consultation with the local authorities. I do not want to push the point, but it is clear that the Minister has had further consultations and it is plain from the proceedings in this Committee that he must have more. Indeed, I would not be surprised to be confronted with the ludicrous situation that an unprepared Front Bench is to have a third attempt at introducing a Financial Resolution, because this is the second attempt.
Let me put some points which I suggest respectfully are not yet clear. The intention of the Government is plain in the Financial Resolution relating to the contribution of half the annual loan charges, but there is a qualification, and that qualification is while any part of the house—I stress"the"house—is occupied. That is simple enough if one considers a row of uninhabitable houses: one house is vacated and the obligation of the Exchequer drops for the second. However, that would scarcely be a typical picture in Glasgow or in my burgh. There a typical picture would be a tenement property with 24 houses, six in each of


four landings, and the local authority will, as they normally do, cause the vacation of these dwellings one by one.
Now we might get to the stage where there was only one tenant left in the entire building, but there are other charges which the local authority must shoulder as long as they are unable to demolish the whole tenement. I am certain that the Minister who is to reply, and who is familiar with this type of situation, would not want, in the spirit of the Financial Resolution, to have a local authority set at such a disadvantage, but it is at least ambiguous in the Financial Resolution and no remarks have been addressed to the subject by the Government Front Bench.
I now put a narrow point in relation to the subsidy. The Minister made the point that, no matter what happens to the temporarily improved dwelling, the annual payment of £7 5s. will continue for 15 years. Yet the right hon. Gentleman was good enough to make it plain to us that in his calculation of the deficit, and therefore in his calculation of the subsidy, he was making an allowance not only for a rent but for a higher rent.
The local authority would plainly be failing in its duty and would plainly be failing to respond to the exhortations of the Minister of Housing and Local Government if it did not push on at full speed with the tackling of this housing problem. But let us consider the matter. The improvement is made, the subsidy is agreed to and at the end of 10 years, let us hope, the poor unfortunate tenant is rehoused and the Government say in their generosity that the £7 5s. continues. But the local authority has lost a rent and has lost the owner's rate, and therefore is very heavily penalised by doing the very job which the Government tell us they are asking the local authorities to place uppermost.
In other words, unless the Government are prepared to think again and to say that the local authority shall be compensated when that happens, then plainly they are being less than candid, because they are pushing the local authority into a position where it could not consider vacating these homes and rehousing these tenants until 15 years had run out. I hope that I have made myself plain to the Minister. The £7 5s. will continue for

15 years provided the Secretary of State has not varied it. We shall discuss that too.
But the local authority pushes along with its programme for rehousing and it takes out the tenant, for the purpose of argument, after 10 years, and does not have another tenant for that deferred demolition. For five years, therefore, it loses the rent and the owner's rating contribution towards the extinction of the debt which the Government have said it has contracted for that work. Obviously, that would be a very unfair position.
There is a point that occurs also in relation to the discussion about feu duties which happily you were spared, Sir Rhys. As you know, I am not a Welshman and I know that my English hon. and right hon. Friends are quite unfamiliar with this conception of feu duties. We who are in touch with local authorities have recently come up against another prolem—the problem of accumulated feu duties. A building falls into disrepair, becomes a slum, and the owner makes himself scarce. He no longer wants to have anything to do with that building. He abandons it, but I think that the ingenuity of my hon. and right hon. Friends who are learned in the law does not amount to saying that where a building is abandoned the same applies to the feu. The feu accumulates. Here is a local authority which is asked by the Minister to acquire and demolish a building, but the Minister does not seem to have made provision for the feu.
What will be the position if the local authority finds that it has accumulated feu duties running to 10, 15 or 20 times the annual charges? The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland knows from experience in Glasgow that that is a reality. I ask my hon. Friends whether, when the local authority is being encouraged to attack the worst slums, the Government are not saying, "Not the worst slums but slums as long as they do not cost this additional money. "Are slums in Glasgow to be left alone?

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Order.

Captain Duncan: Address the Chair.

Mr. McNeil: I am sorry if I turned towards my hon. Friends. I was naturally referring the matter to my hon.


Friends because experience of this type of subject is normally found on this side of the Committee, although I make an exception in the case of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Joint Under-Secretary, who has a life-long familiarity with this problem. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will use his knowledge of the situation to tell us frankly what the Government propose to do inside this Financial Resolution to meet that problem, which is a very real one.
Other complications arise from feu duties with which I am not familiar. When a local authority takes over a site with accumulated feu duties, what happens to the subsequent feu duties? Is the local authority automatically relieved from any subsequent payment? If there are subsequent demands, do the Government intend that they should continue until the site value develops? That is a tricky point which should fall inside the Resolution, but it is not provided for. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will at any rate give a hint of his intention. I sympathise with him in that he has to confer with his right hon. and learned Friend, and I confess that I would be in exactly the same situation if I were Secretary of State.
The most important question which has emerged from these proceedings is that we must plead with the Government to tell us how this calculation of the deficit is arrived at. My hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele) made a very persuasive attempt and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) made another very valiant attempt but neither this Committee, nor the local authority, nor the tenants should be left in any ignorance as to how this calculation is made. In pointing to one curious feature which must be inherent in the calculation, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central argued, rather persuasively at first sight, that there will be a rating change. He was attracted by paragraph (b) which refers to rents fixed under the 1950 Act. I think that probably he is wrong, but at any rate he served the Committee in drawing attention to that ambiguity. I believe that the previous paragraph will exempt the local authorities from paying a higher rate, but this is very important

and we are indebted to my hon. Friend. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will make the point clear.
Even if the rates are frozen, it seems to us on this side of the Committee that the right hon. Gentlemen, in calculating the deficit, are clearly calculating that the dweller is to be asked to remain for a further 15 years in a house and to be penalised. Let us admit that the problem cannot be tackled overnight. He is to be penalised because of the unwillingness of the Government to face the full financial burden. For the privileges of remaining in a temporarily repaired house, he is to be asked to pay 30 per cent. or 40 per cent. increased rent. It is aludicrous situation. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will explain to his right hon. Friends who are to support him in the Lobby tonight exactly what percentage of a higher rent he anticipates local authorities should levy on these poor, unfortunate people so that the Government can gallop away from their responsibilities.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) and several informed and experienced hon. Members on this side of the Committee have made the admission—as I would be anxious to make the admission—that of course there can be no certainty about the calculation. There are some things which are fairly obvious. It is fairly obvious, as transpired in a previous debate, that if the basis of the calculation rests on the Birmingham experience, it has no relevance to what Scottish local authorities may anticipate in their problems. The problem is utterly different. In Birmingham a dwelling which is 80, 90 or 100 years old is being dealt with. That is not the situation in Scotland. There, huge dismal towering tenements, built on sand-stone at the best and on sand and rubble at the worst, and which are nearly 150 years old, will be dealt with and the cost will be much higher.
The right hon. Gentleman should show us what connecting factor was inherent in his calculations to take account of the probable increased repairs bill which a Scottish local authority may anticipate in tackling a problem similar to that of their English colleagues. The basis of that difference is that there will be doubt and that there are no firm figures of the probable cost.
There is no doubt in our minds and in the minds of the local authorities that the three-to-one ratio should not have been abandoned here. By what kind of topsy-turvy reasoning do the Government arrive at this decision? A local authority with a new dwelling has an additional rating subject, with owner's and occupier's rates accruing to the authority for more than 50, 60, 70 or 80 years. The Government, with logic that must startle themselves, say to the local authority, "Here is a poor miserable falling-down dwelling. Make the best you can of it for 15 years, with your rates frozen and with an annual deficit towards meeting which we will make some problematical contribution," and the basis of the contribution is fifty-fifty.
If the local authority has something valuable to itself and to its citizens, the Government say that the proportion is to be three to one; but if the local authority has something of which it must be ashamed, which is a misery inflicted upon one of its citizens, which is of no increased rateable value and is falling down before their eyes, the Government, in their wisdom, justice and generosity, say, "We will not make a three-to-one contribution."
There is a precedent. When we on this side of the Committee carried our 1949 Measure, we adhered to the basis of local authority expenditure in relation to repairs, and I suggest that the Government will continue to be under pressure from every local authority unless they do the honourable thing here. Moreover, if they really want this scheme to work, they will have to change the ratio. The Minister of Housing and Local Government said that he was afraid of making this proposal dangerously attractive. He can certainly save himself that worry. What is true is that he has made it unattractively dangerous for any local authority to act at all under the conditions provided in the Financial Resolution.
My right hon. and hon. Friends could find an abundance of reasons for voting against this Resolution. There is one reason on which we will stand. We could not find any form acceptable to the Chair—we make no complaint about that—by which we could have changed this Resolution to meet the wishes of responsible local authorities with whom

the right hon. Gentleman has been in consultation. Because it is unjust, because it will prove in many cases unworkable, because it is just a propaganda front—that is what it is—for which the Government are not even willing to pay a just price, I and my hon. and right hon. Friends will have no alternative, unless the right hon. Gentleman removes all our fears, to dividing against the Resolution.

9.45 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Commander T. D. Galbraith): We have listened to a lot of criticism during this debate and I am rather sorry that so much of it was purely destructive criticism and so little constructive. In fact, there has not been one constructive suggestion put forward from the benches opposite during the whole of the debate—

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Woodburn: I think the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would agree that the proper definition of the word "construction" is "building." Unfortunately, we are not allowed to build up the subsidy. Unless the Queen's consent is given, an Amendment cannot be moved to build up the subsidy.

Commander Galbraith: The only suggestion which has run through the great majority of the speeches from hon. Gentlemen opposite is that the Government should hand out a great deal more money than they are doing. I wondered, as I looked at the right hon. Member for Greenock (Mr. McNeil), whether, if he was in the same position which he occupied a few years ago, he would be piping that particular tune. I doubt it very much indeed.
Judging from many of the speeches there is no doubt that there is a desire on the part of all hon. Members to understand how these calculations are arrived at. I was under the impression that I had endeavoured to explain it during my Second Reading speech. Perhaps I am wrong. In any case, the situation is that it is exactly similar to the manner in which the subsidy calculation is made in respect of new houses.
We have assumed that the average capital cost would be £170. I think that is a reasonable figure. It may be a little


higher in some areas and considerably lower in others. The loan charge on that figure is 3½ per cent. over 15 years. The figures were given more or less correctly by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes), but it would be as well if I confirmed that as £14 13s. 3d. We have allowed for maintenance and management on exactly the same scale as in the subsidy calculation for new houses, £8 for repairs and £3 for management making £11 in all.
We have calculated, with rents at present running at £13 10s., on average owners' rates at 7s. 5d. That is the Scottish average and we thus get for owners' rates the sum of £5 0s. 1d. This gives a total outlay of £30 13s. 4d. We deduct the average new rent which, with 50 per cent. of the houses at £18 18s. and 50 per cent. at £13 10s., strikes an average of £16 4s. Therefore, we have an annual deficit of £14 9s. 4d. So we take the round figure of £14 10s. The Committee knows it is equally divided between the local authority and the Exchequer. I should like to say here, because I have been asked to explain what happened when I met the local authority associations in thismatter—

Mr. McNeil: We are grateful to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, but before he leaves the figures would he explain what his calculation of the new rent means in terms of increase?

Commander Galbraith: It is very slight indeed. The right hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do the average rents for this type of house which exist in the City of Glasgow and in his own constituency, and I would submit an average of £16 4s. is fair. That is the average rent. The increase must be something not very large. Obviously, with many of these houses, which are in very poor condition, no local authority could increase the rent to any extent. However, there will be many houses which the local authority may think fit to put into a fit condition. There will be houses where the owner is incapable financially of doing the necessary repairs. Such houses will, through one operation or another, fall to the local authority, and such houses may be made fully fit. Not only that, they may be actually improved. In cases like that, which I understand are likely to be numerous.

surely the local authority might think fit to charge a greater rent for a fully fit house than it would consider proper for a house which was not fully fit.
What I was about to say before I was led away by the interruption was that when I met the local authority associations they suggested that the figure that we should take for the annual deficiency should be £15. I asked on what that was based, and no figures were forthcoming. I suggested that perhaps it was more reasonable to accept £14 10s. on which we had figures which had been placed before their officials.

Mr. McInnes: And no increase in rates either payable by the owner, which, in this case, would be the local authority, or the tenant who occupied the house?

Commander Galbraith: No increase of rates in what connection?

Mr. McInnes: When the local authority knows the effect of the calculations, and increases the rent, that will not be taken into account as a charge in respect of rates?

Commander Galbraith: No. I understand that the increase will not mean an extra charge in respect of owners' or occupiers' rates.
That figure of £15 was the only suggestion the local authority associations had to offer to me on that count.
I have been asked a number of questions. There were questions by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Hoy) and also the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn). I have so many notes that I find difficulty in answering all the questions, and I am afraid I cannot find the notes on the point to which I intended to refer. I will try to refer to it later.
Meantime, I will take up some of the points raised by the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire. He felt that it was a wrong application of public money which was suggested in the Money Resolution. He said that it ought to be applied to the best purpose. I cannot think of a better purpose to which to put public money than that of making living conditions more tolerable than they are today for the worst housed of our population.


Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman said that conditions must be made more tolerable but that we should give no inducement to perpetuate the slums.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State stressed in his speech that there was no intention that there should be a perpetuation of the slums and that this patching operation was only for such a period as it was necessary for the houses to be occupied.

Mr. Woodburn: Before the right hon. and gallant Gentleman leaves the points which I raised, there was one important point which ought to be answered. It relates to the conditions which will justify the Secretary of State's withholding of the grant where local authorities have worked on houses and carried out part of the scheme. Under the Bill the Secretary of State is entitled to withhold the whole or part of the grant. That seems very drastic, and local authorities must be alarmed that that will be possible.

Commander Galbraith: I will deal with the point straight away. We must look at the matter in two ways. First, my right hon. Friend can, in terms of the Financial Resolution, vary the subsidy. He would only do that after we had gained experience.
But a local authority might take over, say, 500 houses and make the merest attempt at patching them up, perhaps doing a little more extensive patching of a few, and that would not be acting in the spirit of the Bill. Surely the Minister must have powers to take action in such a case. These are the powers which the Minister is given in Clause 4 (3). They are quite different from his powers of bringing forward a regulation, subject to an Affirmative Resolution, to alter the general subsidy. I hope the point is now clear.

Mr. Woodburn: Not quite. There is a further point which is closely related to that one. Having regard to all the variations and the flexibility which have been introduced, can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman tell us where there are any conditions by means of which local authorities can calculate that they will get a grant? There is, for instance, no provision to say that the grant will be payable in all normal circumstances except where the Secretary of State has good reason to withdraw it. Is the grant

to be payable in every circumstance except where there are good and sufficient reasons for the Secretary of State to impose penal measures?

Commander Galbraith: I should have thought that it was absolutely clear from the terms of the Bill and the Money Resolution that it is only in the very peculiar circumstances which I have endeavoured to indicate that the Secretary of State would take action.

Mr. Manuel: In relation to the provision which permits the Secretary of State to increase the contributions if a local authority is over-spending by a considerable sum the £7 5s. contribution from the rates, would the Secretary of State rule against an increased contribution under the Regulation because the local authority was not increasing the rents of the unfit houses once they had been made wind and waterproof?

Commander Galbraith: The hon. Gentleman has not got the situation clear. My right hon. Friend would not consider increasing the subsidy unless there was ample evidence to show that the expenditure required was greater than the £170 on which the calculation of subsidy is based at present. It would only be in those circumstances that my right hon. Friend would deal with the matter.
The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele) endeavoured to work out a lot of abstruse calculations. The trouble that he got into was caused by his mixing up the two subsidies, the subsidy payable on acquisition and the subsidy in relation to the amount of repair work done. I hope the explanation that I have given of the way the subsidy for repair work is calculated will have made the matter clear to him.
The hon. Gentleman also asked me what would be the reply when the architect went along to a local authority and asked what the standard was to be. Of course, that will depend on the length of time which the local authority thinks it will be necessary to retain any of these controlled houses before they can be demolished. They will haw to treat certain houses or certain sections of houses in different ways and in different periods.
The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) spoke with some feeling


on the position of Clydebank. He went back to 1917 in order to get the evidence of the sanitary inspector of that time, but, fortunately or unfortunately—fortunately from one point of view, but most definitely unfortunately from another—Clydebank suffered very severely during the war when 4,000 of these houses were destroyed. In fact, the financial liability of Clydebank at present is to a large extent the result of the destruction of those 4,000 houses, and the Government have done their best, by the provisions which they have made, to make good to Clydebank the loss which it suffered.
I have already spoken of the redemption of feu duty, which does affect this Financial Resolution, though not to any great extent, and I have referred to the question of demolition and have said that these matters are under consideration at this moment and that we hope to introduce something at a later date.
There is one more point of substance with which I should like to deal. It was raised by the hon. Members for Kilmarnock and Leith, and it concerns the loan charges on the cost of the purchase. The right hon. Gentleman also referred to the fact that, on Second Reading, my right hon. Friend by a pure slip of the tongue, had spoken of half the cost of acquisition, but, of course, he did not mean anything of the kind, and I remember myself that he corrected himself quickly. He was talking about half the loan charges arising out of the cost of acquisition. The Exchequer will pay 50 per cent. of the annual loan charges so long as the house is used for housing purposes under the Bill. When that use ceases, the local authority can get such grants as may be appropriate under other statutory provisions when the site is put to some other use.
Let me give some examples. If it is to be used for new housing development, the housing subsidy takes account of the loan charges payable for the residue of the 60 years that remain. If, on the other hand, it is appropriated for town and country planning purposes, the local authority will get a grant of 50 per cent. of the outstanding loan charges under the Town and Country Planning Act.

Mr. McNeil: If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will contemplate the situation, he will see that, obviously, the local authority would not qualify under either of those Acts, because while 39 houses may be unoccupied, if one tenant is still there, what then? What is the Government's attitude to that situation?

Commander Galbraith: Fortunately, the local authority will try to arrange that such a desperate situation as that does not arise. If they are going ahead with demolition and re-development, they will obviously endeavour to clear the whole of one property, and that is my answer to the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. McNeil: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman knows from his experience that local authorities must rehouse these people, not at their whim or to suit a tidy administrative plan, but from a sense of justice. For example, in connection with work on an appointed scheme, that is most unlikely to happen.

Commander Galbraith: The right hon. Gentleman must realise that when we come to redevelop after demolition, steps will have to be taken to rehouse a lot of people at one time. There is no getting away from that. No scheme could possibly be devised which would allow us to redevelop and rehouse, say an area in the Gorbals or some other parts of Glasgow, unless we were able to get a cleared site and move the population from that site.
I have dealt, I think fairly fully, with the points that have been raised during the debate.

Mr. Woodburn: What about feu duties?

Commander Galbraith: The right hon. Gentleman wants me to say something about feu duties, but I think I have already informed the Committee of that situation. My right hon. Friend hopes to deal with it in the near future.

Mr. McNeil: Mr. McNeil rose—

Commander Galbraith: I do not want to be tempted to attack the right hon. Gentleman, but I would say, as one friend to another, that he had some years in office in which to deal with this very difficult problem and did not do so. My right hon. Friend has not been in office much longer than the right hon. Gentle-


man was, and has already taken steps to grapple with difficulties which have confronted and baffled local authorities for many years past, long before the right hon. Gentleman and I were members of the Glasgow Town Council.
Having endeavoured to answer the points that have been put, and in view

of the full speech of my right hon. Friend and the explanation he gave to the Committee, I hope that the Committee may now give us this Money Resolution.

Question put.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 293; Noes, 250.

Division No. 21.]
AYES
[10.10 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Doughty, C. J. A.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm
Jennings, R.


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Drayson, G. B.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Amory, Rt. Hon. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond)
Jones, A. (Hall Green)


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Duthie, W. S.
Kaberry, D.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir D. M.
Kerr, H. W.


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Lambert, Hon. G.


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr, J. M.
Erroll, F. J.
Lambton, Viscount


Baldwin, A. E.
Fell, A.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Banks, Col. C.
Finlay, Graeme
Langford-Holt, J. A.


Barber, Anthony
Fisher, Nigel
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.


Barlow, Sir John
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Legh, Hon, Peter (Petersfield)


Baxter, A. B.
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Ford, Mrs. Patricia
Lindsay, Martin


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Fort, R.
Linstead, Sir H. N.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Foster, John
Llewellyn, D. T.


Bull, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Longden, Gilbert


Birch, Nigel
Gammans, L. D.
Low, A. R. W.


Bishop, F. P.
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)


Black, C. W.
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)


Boothby, Sir R. J. G.
Glover, D.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Bossom, Sir A. C.
Godber, J. B.
McAdden, S. J.


Bowen, E. R.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
McCallum, Major D.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Gough, C. F. H.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Gower, H. R.
Macdonald, Sir Peter


Braine, B. R.
Graham, Sir Fergus
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)
Gridley, Sir Arnold
McKibbin, A. J.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John


Brooman-While, R. C.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Maclean, Fitzroy


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Harden, J. R. E.
Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Hare, Hon. J. H.
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)


Bullard, D. G.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)


Bullus, Wing Commander, E. E.
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)


Burden, F. F. A.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)


Campbell, Sir David
Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.


Carr, Robert
Hay, John
Marlowe, A. A. H.


Cary, Sir Robert
Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Marples, A. E.


Channon, H.
Heald, Sir Lionel
Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston
Heath, Edward
Maude, Angus


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Maudling, R.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Higgs, J. M. C.
Medlicott, Brig. F.


Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Mellor, Sir John


Cole, Norman
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Molson, A. H. E.


Colegate, W. A.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Moore, Sir Thomas


Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Morrison, John (Salisbury)


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Holt, A. F.
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hope, Lord John
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. G.
Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry
Neave, Airey


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Nicholls, Harmar


Crouch, R. F.
Horobin, I. M.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)


Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Nield, Basil (Chester)


Cuthbert, W. N.
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.


Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Nugent, G. R. H.


Davidson, Viscountess
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Nutting, Anthony


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.
Oakshott, H. D.


De la Bere, Sir Rupert
Hurd, A. R.
Odey, G. W.


Deedes, W. F.
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)
O'Neill, Hon. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)


Digby, S. Wingfield
Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Donaldson, Cmdr C. E. McA.
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)


Donner, Sir P. W.






Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare)
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Osborne, C.
Shepherd, William
Touche, Sir Gordon


Page, R. G.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Turner, H. F. L.


Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)
Turton, R. H.


Perkins, W. R. D.
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Snadden, W. McN.
Vane, W. M. F.


Peyton, J. W. W.
Soames, Capt. C.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Spearman, A. C. M.
Vosper, D. F.


Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Speir, R. M.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)


Pill, Miss E. M.
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Powell, J. Enoch
Spens, Rt. Hon. Sir P. (Kensington, S.)
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Stevens, G. P.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Profumo, J. D.
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)
Watkinson, H. A.


Raikes, Sir Victor
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Rayner, Brig. R.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Wellwood, W.


Redmayne, M.
Storey, S.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Remnant, Hon. P.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Renton, D. L. M.
Summers, G. S.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Roberts, Peter (Heeley)
Sutcliffe, Sir Harold
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Robertson, Sir David
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)
Wills, G.


Robson-Brown, W.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Teeling, W.
Wood, Hon. R.


Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)
York, C.


Russell, R. S.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)



Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Sir Cedric Drewe and Mr. Studholme.


Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)



Scott, R. Donald
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)





NOES


Albu, A. H.
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Houghton, Douglas


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Deer, G.
Hoy, J. H.


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Delargy, H. J.
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Dodds, N. N.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Donnelly, D. L.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)


Awbery, S. S.
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)


Balfour, A.
Edelman, M.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)


Bartley, P.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Janner, B.


Bence, C. R.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.


Benn, Hon. Wedgwood
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Jeger, George (Goole)


Benson, G.
Fernyhough, E.
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)


Beswick, F.
Fienburgh, W.
Jones, David (Hartlepool)


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Finch, H. J.
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)


Bing, G. H. C.
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)


Blackburn, F.
Follick, M.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)


Blenkinsop, A.
Foot, M. M.
Keenan, W.


Blyton, W. R.
Forman, J. C.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.


Boardman, H.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
King, Dr. H. M.


Bowden, H. W.
Freeman, John (Watford)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)


Brockway, A. F.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Gibson, C. W.
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Glanville, James
Lewis, Arthur


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Gooch, E. G.
Lindgren, G. S.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.


Burke, W. A.
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Logan, D. G.


Burton, Miss F. E.
Grey, C. F.
MacColl, J. E.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
McGhee, H. G.


Callaghan, L. J.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
McGovern, J.


Carmichael, J.
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
McInnes, J.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Hale, Leslie
McLeavy, F.


Champion, A. J.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.


Clunie, J.
Hamilton, W. W.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Coldrick, W.
Hannan, W.
Mainwaring, W. H.


Collick, P. H.
Hardy, E. A.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hargreaves, A.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Cove, W. G.
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Mann, Mrs. Jean


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hastings, S.
Manuel, A. C.


Crosland, C. A. R.
Hayman, F. H.
Markham, Major Sir Frank


Crossman, R. H. S.
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)
Mason, Roy


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Healy, Cahir (Fermanagh)
Mayhew, C. P.


Daines, P.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Mellish, R. J.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Herbison, Miss M.
Messer, Sir F.


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Mitchison, G. R.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Hobson, C. R.
Monslow, W.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Holman, P.
Moody, A. S.







Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.
Reid, William (Camlachie)
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Morley, R.
Rhodes, H.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Richards, R.
Thornton, E.


Mort, D. L.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Tomney, F.


Moyle, A.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Turner-Samuels, M.


Mulley, F. W.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Murray, J. D.
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Viant, S. P.


Nally, W.
Ross, William
Wallace, H. W.


Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Shackleton, E. A. A.
Warbey, W. N.


Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)


O'Brien, T.
Short, E. W.
Weitzman, D.


Oliver, G. H.
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Wells, William (Walsall)


Orbach, M.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
West, D. G.


Oswald, T.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Wheeldon, W. E.


Padley, W. E.
Skeffington, A. M.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Paget, R. T.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Palmer, A. M. F.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Wigg, George


Pannell, Charles
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)
Wilcock, Group Capt. C A. B.


Pargiter, G. A.
Snow, J. W.
Wilkins, W. A.


Parker, J.
Sorensen, R. W.
Willey, F. T.


Parkin, B. T
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Paton, J.
Steele, T.
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Pearson, A.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Peart, T. F.
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Plummer, Sir Leslie
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Porter, G.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Stross, Dr. Barnett
Wyatt, W. L.


Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Yates, V. F.


Proctor, W. T.
Swingler, S. T.



Pursey, Cmdr. H
Sylvester, G. O.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES: 


Rankin, John
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Mr. Popplewell and Mr. John Taylor.


Reeves, J.
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)



Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)



Question put, and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — LOCAL GOVERNMENT (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) (SCOTLAND) BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Clause 4.—(MEANING OF "ADJUSTED RATEABLE VALUE" AND "STANDARD RATEABLE VALUE".)

10.20 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. James Stuart): I beg to move, in page 3, line 32, at the end, to insert:
or being a structure made available to the local authority under the provisions of the Housing (Temporary Accommodation) Act, 1944.
I do not wish to show any disrespect to the House, but I do not think it will be necessary for me to take up much time on the Amendments on the Order Paper, because they are quite simple.
With regard to this Amendment, the position is that after the Committee stage of this Bill we discovered that the definition of local authority houses did not include the temporary prefabricated houses, and it is the sole intention of this

Amendment that those temporary prefabricated houses should be treated in precisely the same way as other local authority houses. I think that was the general intention of hon. Members, and I hope that they will be prepared to agree to this Amendment.

Mr. James McInnes: I think that the House would like to hear some argument advanced by the right hon. Gentleman as to why he has decided to include temporary houses in this Bill, because there are many other types of local authority houses, apart from temporary ones and those erected by local authorities. There are houses which the local authorities purchase and houses which they take over after they have been abandoned by the owners, but neither of these types is included in the provisions of the Bill.
Clause 4, as it originally stood, provided that for the purpose of calculating equalisation grants, local authorities, instead of taking the actual rateable value of their houses, should accept a notional or an average rateable value. The object of substituting a notional or average rateable value in place of the actual rateable value was obviously designed to remove an existing anomaly, namely, that a local authority which charged low rents for its houses was obviously able to obtain a much


higher equalisation grant, and it was considered that that was very unfair to local authorities who charged a much higher rent.
At that time we all assumed—at least, I certainly did—that the purpose of the amending Bill was to include all local authority houses, from whatever source they emanated. I understood that all houses owned and controlled by a local authority would come under the Bill. That was not so, and during the Committee stage the Government decided to move an Amendment to their own Bill in an attempt to define what constituted a local authority house. For the purpose of equalisation grants the provision was confined to houses erected by local authorities and nothing else.
The Lord Advocate, when moving that Amendment, was challenged by me on the question of whether or not the Bill should include all houses, irrespective of the means by which they came into the possession of local authorities. I had particularly in mind the fact that thousands of houses must inevitably come into the possession of local authorities as the result of the Repairs and Rents Bill. Local authorities will be asked to take those houses over.
The Government are not disposed to include these houses in the Bill because they think the rents of these houses are far too low, and if they were to be included certain local authorities would be prejudiced, and so they now propose a further Amendment to include in the Bill temporary houses. Naturally, I ask why.
I discovered from a document issued by the Department that the rents of temporary houses in Scotland are much higher than those for the ordinary local authority houses. The publication indicates that the average rental of local authority houses in Scotland is £23 16s. 1d., but that the average rental for a temporary house is £24 13s. 3d. I am satisfied that the Government are deliberately including temporary houses to save themselves from expending more from the equalisation fund.
I think the position is anything but justified. It is just another method of reducing the expenditure that the Government will incur through the equalisation grant. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to

reconsider this matter. It is being grossly unfair to the local authorities.
Only a few months ago the right hon. Gentleman almost congratulated himself on being able to extract from the Exchequer a further £2 million for the Scottish Equalisation Grant Fund. Here is evidence tonight of an attempt to cut down that grant expenditure to Scottish local authorities. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to be honest with the House and himself, and withdraw this Amendment.

Mr. J. Stuart: It is correct, as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) has just said, that we did make an Amendment in Committee to exclude certain houses, but it was not our intention to exclude these temporary prefabricated houses. These temporary houses are technically not structures erected by local authorities. They are made, technically, by me, although not by me in person, I admit, and are made available to local authorities on agreed terms.
I think that this is a perfectly reasonable Amendment. I think it is clearly right, because there is really no difference, in so far as local authorities are concerned, between these two classes of houses. The local authorities are dealing with both these temporary houses and the houses which they themselves are responsible for erecting locally, and it was certainly not our intention in Committee to exclude these temporary houses. I hope, therefore, that the House will agree with the Amendment.

Mr. Thomas Fraser: I do not want to delay the House, but I think it should be made clear that the Cunningham Committee, on whose recommendations the Bill is based, said not a word about these temporary houses. It is quite clear that the recommendation in favour of a notional rateable value instead of an actual ratable value for determining the rateable value on which equalisation grant should be based had very much in mind that the existing system of using rateable value as a yardstick to measure need was an incentive to local authorities in receipt of Exchequer equalisation grant to keep the rents of their local authority houses low.
But most of the local authorities in Scotland who have these temporary houses are not engaged in any manipulation of the rents of those houses. The Secretary of State was again wrong when he said that technically they were provided by him. In fact, they were provided by the Ministry of Works, and the Act made it clear that the local authorities would pay the rent of £26 to the Ministry of Works. The recommendation was that the local authorities would charge the £26 rent to the tenants. Most of the local authorities in Scotland did so.
One or two authorities charged a lesser rent. One in particular charged £19, because its permanent brick houses were let at a rent of £22 and £24 and the authority thought it would be monstrous to charge a higher rent for prefabricated temporary houses. But this little addition to the Bill does not make much difference to any local authority in Scotland. It should be made clear, however, that there is no justification for it whatever, and no justification for the recommendations of the Cunningham Committee which was the basis for the Bill in the first place.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 14.—(CITATION AND EXTENT.)

Mr. J. Stuart: I beg to move, in page 11, line 36, at the end, to add:
(2) This Act shall continue in force until the expiration of the fifteenth day of May, nineteen hundred and fifty-nine, and shall then expire.
As the House will know, the words in this Amendment are very nearly the same as those of the Amendment on the Order Paper in the names of the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes), which says that
(2) This Act shall continue in force for a period of five years and shall then expire.
We have the same object in view and the only difference between us is that for purely administrative reasons it would be simpler to bring the Act to an end at the end of the financial year corresponding more or less with the date which the hon. Members have in mind. Our Amendment merely means that the Act would come to an end at the nearest decimal point one can fix after midnight on the night of 15th May, 1959.

Mr. T. Fraser: I wish to thank the Secretary of State for putting down the Amendment. It will be remembered that

in Committee we had quite a discussion on an Amendment in similar terms which I had put down on the Order Paper. I made it quite clear in that discussion that we would use the words which are now being used by the Secretary of State if he so desired. He will remember that he resisted that Amendment strongly in Committee but ultimately we persuaded him to have another look at it.
During the Recess I had correspondence with the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, in which he started off by saying he could give many more reasons why an Amendment limiting the Bill could not possibly be accepted. But I did not give up. I continued to correspond with him, and ultimately he wrote to say that he agreed that it would be desirable to add the Amendment to the Bill. I thank him, therefore, for his second thoughts and for accepting the Amendment, which was so strongly pressed upon him in Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

CWMBRAN NEW TOWN

10.35 p.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: I beg to move.
That the Cwmbran New Town Compulsory Purchase Order No. 9 (The Garw), 1952, a copy of which was laid before this House on 24th November, be annulled.
This is a Prayer asking the House to annul the Order which was made by the Cwmbran Development Corporation and was confirmed by the Minister of Housing and Local Government.
The Prayer comes before the House tonight in somewhat unusual circumstances. You may have noticed, Mr. Speaker, that a similar Prayer was moved in another place yesterday. I have no doubt that it was withdrawn because, obviously, a matter of this kind is far more conveniently dealt with in this House. I was a little surprised, and no doubt you were, to have seen from the Press that the Minister in another place yesterday said that he had spent a whole fortnight in a thorough and intensive study of this matter. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary has not had to


spend a whole fortnight in studying what, after all, is not a very complicated matter.
I noticed also that the Government spokesman in another place had made a special journey to Cwmbran and back at his own expense. It seems to me that however the Government manage their affairs they should not be so parsimonious as to expect Ministers in this or in another place to travel about the country on official and important business at their own expense. I very much hope that steps will be taken to see that Lord Mancroft is duly reimbursed for his out of pocket expenses and all the trouble he took in this matter.
There is another curious feature about this Order. The Order was made on 25th July and laid before Parliament. Then Pontypool Rural District Council, who were concerned in the matter because they were the owners of the land which Cwmbran new town was seeking to acquire by compulsory purchase, decided to petition against the Order. In accordance with procedure, their petition, duly sealed by the council, was deposited in the House of Lords. But, unfortunately, no doubt owing to the fact that Pontypool Rural District Council has not had a great deal of experience in petitioning Parliament—fortunately for them—they omitted to deposit a copy of the petition with the Minister in due time. I think they were a few hours late in depositing it with the Minister. As a result, the Lord Chairman of Committees and the Chairman of Ways and Means, acting jointly, reported that the petition did not comply with the Standing Orders.
That would have been an end of the matter as far as the unfortunate Pontypool Rural District Council were concerned were it not for what I must acknowledge was a very handsome and generous act of the Minister of Housing and Local Government. I always like to give credit where I think it is due; there are plenty of opportunities in this House of criticising the Minister, but on this occasion he did the right thing. He was not going to let the Pontypool Rural District Council be penalised because, by an oversight, they delayed for a few hours to serve him with a copy of the petition. So he did a sporting thing—he withdrew the Order he had

made confirming the order of the Cwmbran Council, and made a new Order, and it is against this new Order that my Prayer is directed.
As a result of the new Order having been laid, Pontypool Rural District Council have now filed a second petition which has been duly lodged, and duly served on the Minister, and everything will be in order for that petition to be considered by a joint committee of both Houses. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) has an Amendment to my Motion on the Order Paper, with which I must confess I do not seriously disagree, the. effect of which would be to enable Pontypool Rural District Council to have their arguments properly considered, as they are entitled to do, because in this House we always feel it is a matter of some delicacy when there is an argument between two local authorities, or, in this case, between a local authority and a new town, and I think one would have, prima facie, a certain amount of sympathy with the Council because they have taken the initiative in this matter.
They bought this land; they have a housing problem like everyone else, they have 209 unsatisfied applicants for houses, and, therefore, they bought some land as long ago as 1948. They have incurred a good deal of expense. They have spent about £9,000 in providing a road, because where they bought the land one could not put up any houses until one had built a road. They would have liked to buy some more land, but at that time the Welsh Board of Health would not let them.
They built this road, and put up a certain number of houses, and were about to buy some more land front aging on to the road they had built. Then, to their surprise, the new town came along and said, "We would like to have all this land." Pontypool Rural District Council have bought some of it; they have put up some houses, and on the rest of it they have now put up some more. That is the story in a nutshell. I do not want to elaborate on it or go into the merits, but merely to submit that, in the circumstances, I should have thought that Pontypool had, at any rate, a case which they were entitled to have argued before the appropriate committee of the two Houses in accordance with the procedure laid down in this matter.

10.43 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Hale: I beg to second the Motion.
My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) has dealt with this matter with such clarity that there is nothing for me to do but to add just one sentence. I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary will bear in mind that the whole House will be waiting with wrapt, intense expectancy the answer to the question whether the noble Lord who, in another place yesterday, spoke with such passionate indignation about this matter, who had made this long, difficult, arduous and expensive journey, who had devoted 14 days of continuous, deliberate and, no doubt, painful cogitation to this matter, had in fact, at the end of that, arrived at any conclusion, and if so, what that conclusion was.

10.44 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, to leave out from "the," to the end of the Question, and to add:
Petition of the Rural District Council of Pontypool against the Cwmbran New Town Compulsory Purchase Order No. 9 (The Garw), 1952, be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses.
I should like to join with my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher), in expressing my thanks and those of the Pontypool Rural District Council to the Minister for his courtesy in not riding off on the technical slip that had been made, and in allowing the matter to be brought before Parliament so that we could hear the Government's explanation. I also join with my hon. Friends in my hope that the Minister who went down to Wales will have the usual courtesies paid to him, even when he is not a Minister of a Department, but has the difficult task of answering for all their sins—in a place where there are 24 bishops and two archbishops to consider sins.
I am not too much concerned with the merits of the dispute between the district council and the new town corporation. I think it a pity when two bodies of this kind get into conflict, because it clearly must be to the advantage of everyone that, so far as possible, local authorities should try to manage their affairs so that they do not provide an undue amount of fees to lawyers and expert witnesses.

Such fees very soon mount up in cases of this kind. Sometimes I think that the smaller the issue the greater the amount of indignation which is engendered on both sides.
As I understand—and I think it desirable that this should be stated—the new town has endeavoured to do something, at any rate, to remove the difficulty they created for the rural district council. I think that should be publicly stated so that it may be realised that there were some efforts made locally to get this matter settled amicably.
I can well understand that the Pontypool Rural District Council, having bought this piece of land and started to develop it, were disappointed when they found another public corporation wanting the same piece of land. I understand that so far as costs are concerned the district valuer will settle the price of the land, but there is also the capital development which has taken place. I should have thought that also might have been assessed by the district valuer with the additional advantage that he would be able to see the engineer's certificates and presumably the receipted accounts for the expenditure that the district council has incurred.
I also understand that the new town has made an offer to the district council with regard to the nomination of some of the tenants for the houses that will be erected. I hope that in any arrangement which may be made that sensible procedure will be preserved. Everyone knows that when a district council develops an estate of this kind a number of people think that there are houses going up in which they will have a chance of living. It would be a pity if the mere change of ownership of the land meant that the persons on the waiting list of the rural district council had to wait a longer period for a house.
The position is somewhat cumbrous. A provision is laid down by the Act under which the new towns were created that if there is a dispute of this kind the matter must be brought before the House in the form of a Motion, as moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East, and then either House of Parliament has to refer it to a Joint Select Committee.
As I have said, we are anxious to get information about what has happened,


and I understand that the Minister has given personal attention to this matter. I am sure the House would desire to be guided by the view which the right hon. Gentleman has, and its necessity finally to accept it. But I want to say that all of us recognise that this opportunity has only occurred through the courtesy of the Minister in not treating this rural district council according to the strict technicalities, but has afforded it an opportunity which I am sure a large local authority in the habit of coming before this House with private Bills and other matters would not expect to get. If that large authority were a few hours late it would be bad luck for them, and I have no doubt that someone would get into hot water locally.
I am sure that the House would desire that what appears in an Act of Parliament as being an opportunity for getting further consideration of views should not be denied to a small local authority when the big local authorities, with advisers who are continually handling these matters, would not fall into similar difficulties. At this stage neither my hon. Friends nor I am expressing views on the merits of the dispute between the new town corporation and the rural district council. We hope that as a result of the matter being ventilated the two bodies will be able to live in amity as the work of constructing the new town is carried on.

10.53 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Colegate: This matter has been somewhat complicated, and I feel that two matters ought to be made clear. First of all, the rural district council is, naturally, grateful for the Minister's courtesy in allowing this matter to be dealt with as it has been. From something which has been said it may be thought that the clerk to the Pontypool Rural District Council was responsible for the technical slip. That is not so. A mistake was made in London by those who were acting for him. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) that it is important that the Minister should let us know what is his view of the circumstances, and the best way to deal with the matter.

10.54 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Ernest Marples): On my right hon. Friend's behalf, I am grateful to the Opposition for the moderate and lucid way in which they have expressed themselves in asking for annulment of this Order. They will not expect me to make a long dissertation on expenses for Members of another place. I noticed the passionate intensity of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) and the similar eagerness of the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) for payment of expenses to their lordships. I noticed how they were supported by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), who said that while they should have expenses no lawyer should have fees.
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for acknowledging that the Minister had not taken advantage of a technical slip. The hon. Member for Islington, East hoped that I had not had to spend a fortnight in inquiry. I could scarcely have done that, because the Order, which was put down in another place on 16th December for 34 days until 19th January, was taken off the Paper in another place yesterday at an hour's notice and placed on the Order Paper in this House. That shows the proper anxiety of the Opposition that their colleagues in another place do not discuss these things before they are discussed in this House; but it shows also a faulty or perhaps non-existent liaison within the party opposite. No doubt that internal error will be corrected in due course.
What are the facts in this case? The hon. Member for Islington, East was wrong in one vital respect. The ball in this case was started rolling in 1950 by the Pontypool Council, who took the initiative by asking the new town corporation to meet them and discuss the sale of three plots of land. The corporation did not approach the council. They both agreed that the plots of land should be bought by the corporation who, naturally, assumed that the cost would be settled by the district valuer. In default of that, there would be arbitration by the Lands Tribunal, a body set up by this House to decide such matters.
Secondly, Pontypool actually passed the plans which the new town corporation proposed to adopt in relation to these plots of land. The corporation submitted them to the planning authority, the Monmouth County Council, through the Minister. The planning authority, in turn, got agreement from the rural district council. Then my right hon. Friend gave approval to the plans. Therefore, the rural district council had no objection whatever, and the new town corporation had committed itself by entering into a contract for developing the site. That was in 1952.
By July, 1952, it was clear that agreement could only be reached on the price of two of the plots and not on the third, and that the council would not allow it to go to arbitration. As this plot was part of their neighbourhood scheme the corporation had to do something, so they issued a compulsory purchase Order on the third plot to which objection was taken by the rural district council. In March, 1953, my right hon. Friend arranged for a hearing. It is curious to examine what happened. When at that hearing Pontypool were questioned by representatives of the corporation, they said they were willing to sell, at their price; in other words, although their objection to the Order was on other grounds, it was clear that only price was the stumbling block.
On the side of the new towns corporation, they had said that they had prepared plans, everything was agreed, they had let out the contract, and were waiting to start, and if they did not settle the matter quickly they would lose a deal of money on other services. Not only did they do that, but they went much further. They said that in the past they had been scrupulously fair, and that they would now go even further. They were having from Pontypool a piece of land the rural district council wanted to keep. The corporation said they would offer them an area similar in size on which they could build houses so that the rural district council did not lose any land. In addition, the corporation said that on the land on which they would build the rural district council could nominate tenants for half the houses. So from the housing point of view also the rural district has done better under this than it would have done had it retained the land.
It is not convenient for the House to listen to long and lengthy arguments, but I submit that my short summary of the facts has made out an overwhelming case for the Order. If we do not have the Order it will mean that the corporation will have an immense expense, and, therefore, the Government's advice is that we simply cannot allow this Order to be annulled. On the question of the Joint Committee, if this matter did go upstairs for consideration it would be an expensive and protracted procedure leading to abortive expenditure. In these circumstances, I am not without hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields and the hon. Gentleman for Islington, East will withdraw the Amendment and the Motion.
I would say this to the right hon. Gentleman, that it is important when we superimpose a new town corporation on a local authority that we do nothing to make for strained relations at any time. It is very difficult to establish new towns because the local authority is often wounded, and in some cases there is friction, and I should not like anything said in the debate to be regarded as acrimonious by either party. Let us get on with giving the new town corporation what it wants, and to which it is committed. At the same time, I will consult the Minister to see if he will take into account the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman about the arrangement under which the corporation proposes to offer the rural district council an extra piece of land plus the offer of the chance to nominate half the tenants. We cannot give a guarantee that they will accept the advice, but we will do all that is possible to see that that advice is accepted.

11.4 p.m.

Mr. Granville West: As this problem is one which affects my constituency it is perhaps right that I should say a word about it. As I understand, the facts of the matter are as related by the Parliamentary Secretary, and it should go on record that the position, as I am informed, indicates that the corporation did everything to reach agreement with the rural district council. My constituents and the people who are living in neighbouring constituencies have over a period of 12 months or more been deprived of houses which would have been built on


this site if this regrettable dispute had not arisen.
I hope that by this debate the House has given a sufficient indication that disputes of this sort are to be deplored. Local authorities should work together in the building of houses which are so sadly needed throughout the country, and not have this cumbrous procedure invoked merely because there is a haggle over a price—a haggle which could have been decided either by the proper authorities or by arbitration, which was offered to the Pontypool Council. It is an indication that local authorities should, in future, try to reach agreement upon matters of this sort.
I see that the Minister of Housing and Local Government is in his place. He will remember that I saw him upon this matter. So far as the merits of this case are concerned, I was in favour of the new town corporation, because they had done everything to meet the demands of the Pontypool Rural District Council. Nevertheless, when I heard of the difficulty in which the Pontypool Council were, on this pure technicality, I approached the Minister and suggested that steps should be taken so that the Council should have an opportunity of having the case brought before Parliament and the matter discussed.
I am very grateful to the Minister for having taken that course. I think it right that that course was taken, because the Pontypool Council, although acting unwisely in this matter and not in that spirit of co-operation which we should expect them to adopt, nevertheless had the right to put their case before Parliament. That having been done, I hope that my right hon. Friend and hon. Friends will now feel that they can withdraw their Motion and Amendment.

Mr. Ede: Having heard the answer of the Parliamentary Secretary and the views of my hon. Friend, and thoroughly agreeing with the last few sentences of the speech of my hon. Friend with regard to the desirability of local authorities working together, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. E. Fletcher: I have the same view as that of my right hon. Friend. Having regard to the very thorough, careful and

reasonable speech that the Parliamentary Secretary made, putting the whole of the facts in their true perspective, and having heard what my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. West) said, I am perfectly satisfied that the right course for me is to withdraw the Motion. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

WELSH HOSPITALS (ACCOMMODATION)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn." [Major Conant.]

11.8 p.m.

The Rev. Llywelyn Williams: I think that it is both fitting and proper that any discussion on the accommodation in Welsh hospitals today should be prefaced by a tribute to the excellent work being done by the Welsh Hospital Regional Board in general and the work of the Chairman of that Board, Sir Frederick Alban, in particular. I have been unable to ascertain the figures for 1953, but the information I have received gives me authority to inform the House that the picture is slowly improving with regard to hospital accommodation in the Principality.
I should like to offer to the House some comparative figures as between 31st December, 1951, and 31st December, 1952. The total bed complement for 1951 was 25,880. In 1952, it was 26,095. The number of unavailable beds—closed for lack of staff and for other reasons—on 31st December, 1951, was 1,445, and on 31st December, 1952, it was 1,049. Available beds in the year ending 31st December, 1951, numbered 25,228; in the year ending 31st December, 1952, 25,832. The average daily number of occupied beds over the year 1951 was 22,107; in 1952, 22,533.
Now we come to the vexed question of amenity beds. For both 1951 and 1952 the total complement was 130. The number of patients occupying such beds on payment increased from 606 in 1951 to 725 in 1952. The average number of patients passing through each bed—I am not now referring to amenity beds—in 1951 was 6·39; in 1952, 6·7. This satisfactory progress in what is called "high


occupancy" or quick turnover of beds is due to a number of reasons. One is early ambulation or early rising from bed after an operation.
The Nuffield Provincial Hospitals Trust published an excellent report for the years 1948 to 1951, and in a chapter, "Function and Design of Hospitals," it has this observation to make after an intensive survey:
It could, moreover, be inferred from the data that under a fairly strict early-ambulation régime the present number of bedfast patients could be drastically reduced, probably to less than a third in surgical wards, and to less than a half in medical wards—a very important nursing consideration.
Another reason for this improvement is the better use made of existing buildings, and another substantial reason is the increase in the splendid work done in the out-patients' departments. The total out-patient attendances during 1951 were 1,026,322; in 1952, 1,046,172. The inestimable value of the out-patients' departments must be evident to the House. The new patients attending these out-patient departments in 1951 numbered 323,887; the number went up in 1952 to 330,041.
I should like to quote a statement made by Dr. H. Trevor Jones, senior administrative medical officer, in the Annual Report of the Welsh Regional Hospital Board:
The experience we have gained in recent years in the better use of out-patient departments—and the ideas which are now being adopted in their design and equipment—may make us radically revise our ideas of the number of beds which are necessary or even desirable. This development appears to thoughtful observers to be one of the most important indications for the future. Combined with other features in the modern treatment of disease, particularly the control of infection, and the quicker and more exact possibilities of diagnosis, all these things make both the necessity for a stay in hospital avoidable and reduce the length of stay.
For all the admitted excellence of the work done by out-patients' departments, however, there are still some serious criticisms to be made of certain aspects of their operation. The most annoying, vexatious and uneconomic is the wasting of time between appointment and consultation.
I have had some personal experience of this. A year or so ago I had to attend a local hospital for an X-ray examination.

The appointment was for two o'clock. I was there very early and was first in the queue. At about 1.55 p.m. I was told to undress and be ready for the examination, and there I was shivering away until 2.50 p.m. I had a similar experience with my little daughter, who went to a hospital in Newport for an orthopædic examination last year. I remember very well the rush to get her there for 9 or 10 o'clock in the morning, but the examination did not take place until the afternoon. I am not unmindful of the difficulties and I would hazard a guess that the consultants in our modern hospitals are probably the most hard-working section of the community. But surely something can be done in this connection.
The Nuffield Provincial Hospitals Trust has conducted two surveys on the question of showing the relation between consultation time and out-patients' waiting time. It may supply the key to the question of the intervals at which, in any particular circumstances, patients ought to be called to attend at hospitals. Since the rate and volume of patients passing through clinics will then be predictable, rationalisation and economy in planning and staffing the out-patients' department as a whole will be much facilitated. As things are now, the Trust says:
It is still rare to find an out-patients' department in which the complicated problems of organising and integrating the various parts of the service have been so well solved that the patients pass through the clinics and away without being unduly delayed or hustled at any stage.
The Welsh Regional Hospitals Board feels that it has turned the corner with regard to the increasing waiting lists, and pro rata they compare more than favourably with those in England. London hospitals however are better placed in this respect. In 1951, the waiting list was 39,078; in 1952, it was 36,824, an appreciable drop. I was glad to read in the "Western Mail" on Monday that Professor Picken, the Provost of the Welsh National School of Medicine, was able to announce that a serious scientific investigation is to be made, I believe for the first time in the history of Britain, by the Welsh Regional Board into this question of the waiting list and what can be done to analyse these lists much more scientifically than previously. The Welsh nation will be very proud to


be leading the whole of Britain in this respect.
The waiting list for eye, ear and throat in-patients show a substantial decrease from 12,353 in 1951 to 9,168 in 1952. The out-patients' list was reduced from 2,949 in 1951 to 2,841 in 1952. The figures for tuberculosis that erstwhile terrible scourge in Wales, are also encouraging. The intake of both in-patients and out-patients show an increase, and very much more thoracic surgery is being done. In December, 1951, there were 941 on the waiting list. In December, 1952, the figure was 921. Even so, much remains to be done, as is revealed in the following quotation from a letter which I have received from a physician:
It is obvious to me that in your position it is most difficult to appreciate the unfortunate conditions prevailing in South Wales so far as sufferers with pulmonary tuberculosis are concerned. In recent years there has been a complete swing over in the views taken with regard to treatment. Minor collapse therapy such as artificial pneumothorax induction has been virtually abandoned. Regrettably, the facilities for carrying out major chest surgery on the large number of patients needing such operative treatment are hopelessly inadequate.
A short time ago I was told there were approximately 800 people on the lists of the Welsh Regional Hospital Board awaiting sanatorium treatment and of these approximately 400 were booked for major chest surgery. Until more centres are opened up it is obvious that nothing can be done to relieve this situation which apparently was not envisaged some three or four years ago when such drastic changes in policy regarding treatment were made.
There is no doubt in my own mind that sufferers from tuberculosis constitute a victimised group of patients under the Health Scheme as things stand today. Patients requiring operative treatment in any other branch of surgery can get the necessary procedures with little delay. The prevailing circumstances are particularly unfortunate in South Wales, because of the fact that pulmonary tuberculosis in this part of the country is of the florid type. This fact makes it very difficult for clinical surveillance being sufficient to control cases as out-patients and check deterioration. It is probable that there is a racial susceptibility also.
We are all alarmed by the acute problem centred around our overcrowded mental hospitals. The "Western Mail" is known as the national paper of the Principality. I read in that newspaper on 18th January these words by Dr. Henelly, a leading psychiatrist, referring to the vast incidence of mental disease:

It is considered to represent in England and Wales something of the nature of one million people….
That is a most staggering figure and the paradoxical situation is that although people are more secure materially they appear less secure in themselves. There are many reasons for this state of affairs in these days. Time does not permit me to enter into the reasons for this very unfortunate vast incidence in mental diseases, but I was glad to read in the "Manchester Guardian," on 16th January, that a very fine experiment had been carried on in the Oxford Day Hospital with regard to mental patients. I will quote from the article in the "Manchester Guardian":
The day hospital, as its name implies, cares for its patients from shortly after breakfast, when they are collected from their homes, until early evening when they are returned to them. There is scope for voluntary effort in transport since most patients can travel by car The patients receive occupational therapy, which is recognised as a good form of treatment for selected mental patients of any age, remedial exercises in the physiotherapy department if they have any physical disabilities, and a good midday meal.
It is because the same patient so often needs both forms of treatment and because so many start with a spell in the 'acute' wards of the main hospital that the clinical director of Cowley Road (Dr. L. Cosin, known for his pioneer work in geriatrics at Orsett Lodge Hospital, Essex) is convinced that the day hospital can work at full efficiency only as a department of geriatric unit.
I think that that is a very helpful pointer to possibilities of the future to try to relieve this terrible overcrowding in our mental hospitals.
I should like to refer to the excellent piece of work which was incorporated in a Ministry of Health publication, some time ago, called "The Reception and Welfare of In-Patients in Hospitals." I should like to praise the sympathetic suggestions in that pamphlet and to think that our modern hospitals are dutifully observing those excellent suggestions. I have been to hospital myself as a patient on two occasions, and it is surprising how even educated people have been treated almost as if they were infants. No questions are to be asked; any suggestion of an inquiring mind in any shape or form is frowned on, and the response very often is impersonal and meaningless. I believe that there are hospitals—since I am speaking not only of accommodation in quantitative terms but also in qualitative terms—which


have now moved forward from the old days when patients, because they were poor, were treated quite impersonally, to more enlightened days when patients are treated as individuals and personalities.
My last few words refer to the administration of our hospitals in South Wales, because this has its impact on the accommodation in Wales. The people in the Welsh Regional Hospital Board tell me that their main difficulty is that Government accounting falls into two categories where hospitals are concerned: maintenance expenditure and capital expenditure. Their desire is that this division should not be so artificially regarded. If they were to receive larger sums for capital expenditure they believe they could substantially cut down on what is called maintenance expenditure. These may seem very random remarks thrown together in the hope of ventilating the excellent work done by our hospitals. We are proud of them, but we also hope that where good things are now being done better things may be done in the future.

11.27 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Patricia Hornsby-Smith): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Abertillery (Rev. Ll. Williams) for the manner in which he has raised this debate, and, in view of the shortage of time, I hope he will forgive me if I do not go into detail on all the figures he has given, which I accept as those coming from the Report of the Welsh Regional Board. But it would, perhaps, be more helpful if I give him some more up-to-date figures, which prove that steady progress is not only going on but is actually being expanded. I would also like to endorse the tribute he has paid to the Welsh Hospital Board, and for their very intensive activity to obtain all they can and more, if they can get it, for Wales.

Mr. Roderic Bowen: My hon. Friend did not give figures for cancer treatment or refer to the facilities for cancer treatment in Wales. Can the hon. Lady give us some information on this aspect, because I believe that very much could be done in this respect?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: I have the information, and will endeavour to give it in the short time I have, otherwise I will see the hon. Gentleman afterwards.
The projected schemes completed since 1952 or to be undertaken in the near future will add 1,133 beds to the various specialities. The additions to the bed complement since 31st December, 1952, which are mainly schemes already completed, include, as the hon. Member will know, the new Rhydlafar Orthopaedic Hospital, near Cardiff, providing 240 beds, making a great contribution to reducing the list of waiting patients, and where a particularly large number of children are being treated. Further, there will be another 96 Civil Defence beds in this unit.
There is the new maternity block of 87 beds in the Cardiff Royal Infirmary Hospital. Hensol Castle (Glamorgan) has new pavilions for mental defectives amounting to 210 beds, and there are 55 beds in the new mental deficiency institution at Llanfrechfa Grange (Monmouthshire). In the pneumoconiosis block at Llandough Hospital there are another 50 beds. Of the schemes planned to start in 1954–55, there are 80 beds in the radiotherapeutic centre at Whitchurch Hospital, Glamorgan, one of the units in which the hon. Member is particularly interested, and the medical block at St. David's Hospital, Carmarthen, has a further 100 beds.
There are 50 in the pavilion addition to North Wales Mental Hospital, Denbigh, and approval has just been given for the Oakwood Park Estate, Conway, mental deficiency colony, which will provide 165 beds in the current programme, and ultimately when the extended programme is carried out in full it will provide 500 to 600 beds in all. So, with other beds completed since 1952, there are 738 now in operation, which, with the projected schemes will bring the total to 1,153 in what were regarded as special priorities.
In all, therefore, since 1948, the Welsh Regional Hospital Board and the Board of Governors of the United Cardiff Hospitals have spent a total of £2½ million on capital works, adaptations, and extensions, including moneys made available over their ordinary regional allocation, as, for example, the £400,000 for the maternity department in the Cardiff Royal Infirmary.
There have been other capital projects including the operating theatre and X-ray department for Llanelly Hospital


costing £90,500, the pneumoconiosis treatment centre at Llandough Hospital costing £114,000, and half-a-million which was spent on a new centre for orthopaedics. Several properties have been purchased for hospital purposes at a cost of £175,000, so that, generally speaking, there has been a steady expansion in hospital works and available beds throughout the Welsh Hospital Board's programme. The hon. Member will be aware that the Minister places a very high priority on making up the leeway—by no means common only to Wales—in the treatment of mental health.
I wish to say a word about out-patients and I would endorse what has been said by the hon. Member about the necessity for reducing the waiting time and seeing that the treatment in the out-patients' departments is as speedy as possible. But it is a two-way traffic. Sometimes consultants are not on time and sometimes patients are late. When visiting hospitals and asking patients how long they have been waiting I have been shocked to hear that they arrived at 11 o'clock for an appointment at 9.30. And then there is the type of patient, to which the hon. Member referred, who has the habit of arriving an hour-and-half before his appointment time in the hope of being able to get to the head of the queue. We must obtain co-operation on both sides.
I can assure the hon. Member that we are doing our utmost and I know that the Regional Hospital Board is following the recommendations contained in the circular issued by the Minister about the treatment of out-patients, the methods to be employed in the appointments system and the need to obtain the co-operation of both the staff and the public to remedy some of the difficulties of out-patient service.
It is difficult, particularly with new patients, to assess exactly how long any consultation will take. It may prove to be a matter of minutes or of half-an-hour. But, with all that, we are as anxious as is the hon. Member to increase the efficiency and speed of treatment in out-patient departments. To help with that it has been possible to do a considerable amount of work on

structural alterations in the Welsh hospitals, because it is recognised that out-patient treatment is no less important than in-patient facilities. I agree that out-patient departments, if properly run, can save time, money and bed space.
Since the introduction of the Health Service there has been spent on out-patient facilities in Wales, or there is in process of being spent, nearly £250,000. This money has been expended on various schemes, many of which have been completed during the last year, while others are in the course of completion. Seven schemes costing a total of £90,000 have been completed. A further five schemes are in process, and there are three more schemes for the 1953–54 financial year. In every field, substantial progress is being made in Wales, and priority is being given to those services which had leeway to make up. So far as my Department is concerned, any application for priority from Wales is treated with the greatest sympathy, and we are anxious to give every possible help that we can within the limit of our material and financial resources.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: I appreciate the way in which the hon. Lady has dealt with a difficult question. We know it is difficult for hospital staffs and consultants always to arrange things for people who have to travel long distances, perhaps having to change buses on the way, and for these people to be accommodated at the time at which they have been informed that they should attend the hospital; but could something be done to see that sick people who have travelled long distances are accommodated in reasonably warm, not to say fairly comfortable, surroundings when they have to wait?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: I think that is one of the main purposes of the plans being carried out at present in out-patient departments.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-three Minutes to Twelve o'Clock.